BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?

Subject: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 08:39 PM

It's pretty clear that the war in Iraq was not really a war on terrorism, because the organization that fomented terrorist attacks on the United States (and later Spain, etc.) was not a national organization. The best we could do in trrying to dramatize our wrath was pursue the Taliban by supporting the Northern Alliance, and then declare that Iraq was a source of terror for whatever reason.

There are nine interesting reasons why we have not pursued terrorism using special operations (the only kind equipped to deal with that sort of guerilla organization on any real terms, I think) and they are discussed in an interesting and authoritative-sounding essay on the "showstoppers on this site. I found it very informative and pretty even handed, as well, avoiding partisan rants on either side.

Comments, as always, welcome.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM

Thanks for a very interesting reading. The idea in that article that one error was not to consider being at war with Al Qaeda and to treat it as a criminal case will not go down well with several Mudcatters.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 04 - 03:28 PM

I entertained the belief myself, because I am greatly opposed to allowing the administration to declare war on a "condition" (such as drugs or terror) which makes it infinitely extensible in the way described in 1984; but in order to be effective, it requires SOF tactics, whatever you call it. That's ground truth.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 05:56 AM

The great challenge is to actually target terrorism, as opposed to just doing a media/electoral grab and BEING SEEN to target terrorism without actually doing so.

Producing a number of scapegoats under a media spotlight will satisfy the masses - and bringing in laws to allow all this to happen without judicial scrutiny.

Nauru, Guantanamo Bay, are precedents for establish a government response off shore, which is not constrained by the normal checks and balances that the courts provide. That is, it can be totally illegal and unconstitutional, and there's no legal redress for the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: el ted
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 10:28 AM

Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: GUEST,General Chaos
Date: 22 Apr 04 - 12:47 PM

More bad news from Iraq, todays New York Times reports that two big companys General Electric and Siemens, have suspended operations due to the worsening situation.
"Yeah buddy we will have them godamm A-raabs eating out of our hands, why, give us a coupla months and we will have a democracy like the good oLd US, with a government installed and the oil flowing freely".
And our boys all home.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:07 AM

Thanks Amos,

I agree it was a very interesting essay, as you state detailing nine reasons why Special Operations Forces have not been used in a counter-terrorist role from 1989 up until the decision was taken to act against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I would disagree on your statement in parenthesis, "the only kind equipped to deal with that sort of guerilla organization on any real terms, I think". The use of Special Forces in this context is in fact very limited, lots of other things have to have been carried out successfully before your SOF are called in.

Through the 1990's according to the essay a great deal was talked about, although little was done. The factors described as the "nine showstoppers" conspired to set CIA, the Pentagon and the US Legal system at odds with one another.

Richard Clarke was regarded by senior officers in the Pentagon as, "a madman, out of control, power hungry" - it appears he displayed knowledge of what could be achieved by using special forces, but absolutely no concept of how they were supposed to achieve it.

The current administration is given credit for implementing much of what actually needed doing years before. Rumsfeld is shown to fully understanding what can be achieved and what is required to make it suceed, it also shows that he is fully prepared to take on the Pentagon to actually get things done.

The article unfortunately does not go back far enough in my opinion. It is a pity the author did not look into the decision taken under Jimmy Carter's Presidency to focus almost entirely on tech-intell and dispense with human-intell. It was from that point that rather large "black-holes" started to appear in world-wide US intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:16 AM

One of the big problems in Australia is competitive attitudes between agencies - they don't respect/trust each other's abilities, and are reluctant to share information. This probably happens between countries as well, I imagine.

as well, government departments, which turn up a lot of information, are themselves factionalised, which leads to cover ups, and political judgements made about information based on people's personal career motives.

We also had a situation recently where important information about a terrorist was faxed to ASIO on the weekend - no-one was there to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:25 AM

Why Not?

Because it leads to armed conflict and increases the threat of more terrorist attacks!

Better to pursue an effective solution to the problem creating the terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 08:14 AM

Stupid zealotry?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 12:55 PM

Dianavan,

Well, p'raps I spoke too quickly. I too once dreamed that the roots of terrorism could be found and healed. I do believe that a great deal of very poor-grade thinking has to be in place before a human being will strap on a suicide vest, or even take up an Kalashnikov against another human; unlike some poeple I do not think it is innate, this proclivity for violence. It is born out of real or imagined desperation.

Imagined desperation, of course, is born out of imaginary situations, which requires being willing to let go of imagined realities and deal instead with what is before one. Not a popular notion in some parts of the world.

But there are also a lot of situations causing real desperation in the lives of humans connected with terrorism.

If they had an abundance of water and energy, and access to information, they could probably turn any of them around if they were free to act. Of course, that means some folk have to let go of their captive audiences and ensorcelled minions. Another unpopular idea.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: mg
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 02:39 PM

Violence is there in most of us all along. It can be triggered by desparation. It can most easily be triggered by a more violent person or group threatening us with torture or death and getting us to do stuff we would not normally dream of. I think that is how most tragedies have occured..in Germany, Cambodia, etc. A very small group threatens more people, gets them to go along, the size of the group increases, it is harder to stop the movement. Then you have a genocide. Most people do not rise up against others willy nilly....The sooner you break the cycle the better. Heads have to probably crack to do so but you save countless lives in the long run...hopefully..you never know what can be unleashed. Either way. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: DougR
Date: 23 Apr 04 - 04:24 PM

Amos: WHO is NOT pursuing Terrorism? If you think it is not being pursued, try convincing Pat Tilman's family of that fact.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Peace
Date: 24 Apr 04 - 04:20 PM

Part of the problem is this: If a specific country decides to target specific terrorists, that country may be perceived to be following an agenda that has little to do with the pursuit of justice. Contrary to the belief of a few people on the 'cat, I am not really a blood-thirsty guy. However, I figure terrorists have set themselves 'outside' the justice system, however one defines that. I have read the 'one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter' remarks, and they mean nothing to me. If a group has decided that they have the 'right' to kill innocent people just because they have been oppressed, that sets a new set of criteria in motion.

I grew up in a poor family in a poor district. I missed a few meals as a kid, and using terrorist logic, that would give me the 'right' to randomly kill people to drive home the point that capitalism causes poverty (by its Darwinian nature), and because I am oppressed, it's OK to draw the world's attention to my plight in any manner I choose. Bullshit!

Subsequently, I favour a combined special force at the behest of the UN and some sort of world court--Carol C's idea about the court--to hand out the punishment as required. The Hamas leader who got what he deserved at the hands of the Israelis would have got what he deserved at the hands of the UN. However, maybe that would have been more palatable to people and it would have removed a piece of garbage from the world and kept the Israelis out of the flak that followed.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 02:09 AM

Here's another way of looking at it.

The U.S. and Britain have aggressively ripped off your means of livelihood and are making your life more miserable than under the last tyranny. The citizens of the U.S. and Britain don't really understand how it is to be in a wore torn country because it is so remote from their peaceful, ordinary lives. By creating small (and I mean small when you count the number of people harmed by terrorist acts as opposed to military aggression), you make them aware of the violence you face every day. Thereby raising the awareness of the public of your plight.

Thats about as simple as it gets. I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying that right now, hunting for terrorists is futile. There are too many terrorists willing to die for the cause. Its not one, little hungry boy, Brucie; its tens of thousands of hungry children. And all of them have desperate family members.   

Seeking solutions is the only way.

Unfortunately, the U.S., under Bush, blew it with the U.N. and now the U.N. is busy with the fall-out from that horrible accident on the Korean border. Everyone seems to think that U.N. troops are limitless. There may be a few other hot spots around the world, too. Maybe Iraq isn't a top priority for the U.N.? Did anyone ever consider this?

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 09:51 AM

DougR:

I am not certain that fighting insurgents in Afghanistan is a battle against terrorism.

I know that is what the banner says, but this is the US -- we invented poor-taste, low-truth advertising. No-one lies as smoothly as we do. We have the most successful ad companies in the universe, right here in the good ole lower 48.

I mourn for tilman and admire his courage. But that doesn't mean he was pursuing terrorists.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 11:51 AM

Terrorism is a device that is used by a group of individuals with a common cause who have realized that their enemy is too powerful to confront politically or militarily.

They have two objectives: the ultimate objective is to build up a strong opposition the power that they oppose to overthrow it, but the first objective is to keep their cause alive for however long it takes to build up the opposition.

The thing that makes terrorism such an effective tool is that both the terrorist act and the reprisals to it help advance their cause. A bombing or asassination sends a message out that the cause is alive and well, and the retaliation to it, which might include arrests and counterattacks, and more assasinations, invariable creates new victims of "the power", and strengthens the opposition to it.

For the terrorist, everyone is expendible, and the more extreme a reaction they provoke, the better for their cause.

The fact that terrorists recruit from the disenfranchised, and operate among the disefranchised doesn't mean that they represent them, or even care about them. Their primary attraction is that they are easy marks--it doesn't take much to turn them violently against a power that they probably resent anyway, but it is important to realize that they seldom know the true motives of the people that they are following--

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 12:18 PM

M Ted - You said it much better than me. Yes, it is fuelled by desperation. Thats why waging a war is not the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Apr 04 - 01:08 PM

Canada, right now, is involed in twelve (12) peace-keeping operations, mostly in Africa. All at the request of the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:04 AM

Thanks, brucie. I thought so. Of course nobody in America knows this. Seems that Americans think we have no military at all. Well... when you have to be in 12 places at once...

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:26 AM

Well, Amos, if you don't think Tilman and his fellow Rangers were pursing terrorists, who were they pursuing? Somebody killed Tilman didn't they?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:51 AM

"Yes, it is fuelled by desperation. Thats why waging a war is not the answer."

Given that most of these people come from an area that considers vendettas and blood feuds normal courses of action, what makes you think being nice to them is going to change their attitude toward you or any of the rest of us infidels?

Perhaps where I'm most confused is that most of what I hear coming out of the 9/11 Commission is that this is exactly how 9/11 could have been prevented. If we'd have sent in special forces or used cruise missles better or something of that sort, this would all be over. I'm not faulting the Commission (who hasn't published a final report and may not say this at all) or trying to lay blame, I'm just trying to understand what will work.

Thing is, I remember more traditional terrorists from the 60s and 70s who wanted things that couldn't happen. In some cases there were competing nationalist terrorists who wanted the exact opposite things.    Appeasing one would provoke the other. Worse, there's a reason appeasement has a bad name. Give some people an inch and they are encouraged to blow up more people to get their mile.

If traditional war isn't the answer and special ops aren't the answer and appeasement isn't the answer, what am I left with?

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 01:58 PM

"If traditional war isn't the answer and special ops aren't the answer and appeasement isn't the answer, what am I left with?" Not much--that's why they do it--

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:23 PM

DougR said, "Well, Amos, if you don't think Tilman and his fellow Rangers were pursing terrorists, who were they pursuing? Somebody killed Tilman didn't they?"

No, it's not a problem of terrorists any longer, DougR (and it never was in Iraq). Even if anyone thought that there were terrorists in Iraq, watching the situation there deteriorate over the past year forces us to realize that it is now citizens against occupiers. Nothing to do with terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 02:32 PM

Appeasement is not the answer. Overwhelming military force against the worng target isn't either.

We have a huge legacy of knowledge on the specific topic oif changing people's minds. We spend millions, billions on it. You telling me all that PR skill, all that media mastery, all that ad-mania knowhow, isn't good enough to bring the population of Iraq into alignment with democratic ideals?

And if there is a small percentage of rabid insatiable murderous types, what would handle it is excellent intelligence ont he ground and refined surgical operations -- preferably enabling locals to do their own work.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Pursuit of Terrorism - Why Not?
From: Strick
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:25 PM

"Even if anyone thought that there were terrorists in Iraq, watching the situation there deteriorate over the past year forces us to realize that it is now citizens against occupiers. Nothing to do with terrorism."

The local chieftains have blamed it all on foreigners and promised to turn them over if they catch them. The part of Afghanistan where most of the fighting is today has been left alone until lately.