Why the 'War' on Terror is likely to fail

[Sothis]

It should be noted that the following is merely my take, my interpretation on the events in the world at the moment. I could well be wrong, as this is mostly me thinking aloud, prior to any research.

If there is one thing that history has taught us. it is that 'wars' or military campaigns will not, on their own, defeat terrorist groups and para-military groups.

Britain tried and failed to destroy the IRA and similar movements in Northern Ireland,- in the end, it was only when both sides realised that brute force would not achieve their goals that other steps were taken, and a peace agreement was born. Granted, the situation in Northern Ireland is still shaky, but it's a lot more stable then it was ten years ago, thanks to people looking at the reasons behind the conflict and taking steps to resolve the issues.

Israel has been engaged in battle with Palestinian terrorists for much of it's existence, a conflict that shows little sign of stopping. This is partly because it's been the policy of successive Israeli governments to deny proper education, healthcare, and even the basics like sanitation to the vast majority of the Palestinian people. Yes, there are religious fanatics in Palestine, fanatics who will be virtually impossible to reason with (force is regrettably the only option in such cases), but Israel would probably find that providing the Palestinians with things like access to decent health care and education, not to mention helping them out of poverty, would do much to heal some long-standing wounds. The Palestinians for their part, would have to take serious steps to deal with the terrorists, to show that they are willing to work to improve the plight of their people.

Britain has taken steps (that different people will tell you have had varying degrees of success) to take into account the concerns and fears of the Republican population of Northern Ireland, and Republicans have made concessions in relation to weapons and demands. In Israel, it seems that at the moment, neither side is willing to listen to the other, though given the death of Yasser Arafat, the future there is decidedly up in the air right now.

If there is one lesson to be learned, it's what I said earlier- waging a 'war' on terrorists is never going to be the means to defeating them. You're tackling the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself.

This leads to me to what is perhaps the most significant chain of events my generation has ever faced, and one that will have very significant consequences too- the War on Terror.

How exactly, do you wage war on a terrorist group? They have no central government that can be slain or toppled, they have no borders (indeed, they cross borders all the time, and operate everywhere), and apart from one or two influential figures here and there, they are a loosely-knit organisation. Al Queda right now, is not so much a terrorist group anymore, but more like an ideal that it's members adhere to- and that makes it far more dangerous.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that there are numerous terrorist groups linked to al Queda, whilst not actually being a part of it. These groups have subscribed to al Queda's ideology and methods, but act inderpendently from al Queda. Since September 11th and the subsequent attacks on al Queda's bases in Afghanistan, al Queda has expanded. The actual organisation itself may have suffered losses and been weakened, but it's spread it's message to thousands of disallusioned people throughout the Middle East, and the result is that there are more terrorists than ever.

The United States and other western nations involved in military action against al Queda and other terrorist groups have forgotten to deal with the underlining motivating factors that spur these groups on, and this I believe, will be very costly one day. I am not saying this with one-hundred percent fact, and I am definately not agreeing with it, but I would bet that the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have angered a great many people in the Middle East, and encouraged a small percentage of those people to join terrorist groups. There is already a perception in the Middle East that the US is an expansionist, aggressive nation that threatens their way of life, a perception not aided by years of US governments supplying Israel with billions of dollars in aid and military equipment, and the presence of US military bases in the Middle East. Indeed, it is Israel situation that probably has most Arab nations resenting the US, and it is one of the reasons why men like bin Laden wanted to lash out at the US.

However twisted it may seem to you and me, and however much we may want to deny it, the events of September 11th were not simply acts of religious violence. In the minds of the men who flew those planes into their targets, they were striking back at an aggressor, in order to make themselves heard and noticed. Some of them probably were religious fanatics, but the reality is that such a view is overly simplistic and a closer look at the events in the Middle East shows a much more complex situation than 'I hate America, I want to kill Americans'. What happened on September 11th was a deplorable act of savagery, but unless the politicans come to realise that there is more of a reason than hatred, terrorism will continue, and using nothing but military force against terrorists will only solidify in the minds of young men and women in the Middle East the view that the US is an aggressor. If the real problems- the poverty, the corruption, the education and health care systems of Arab nations- are dealt with, al Queda won't have a breeding ground for terrorists anymore. People will come to see the US in a positive light. Force will always have to be considered, for yes, there are some fanatics who cannot be reasoned with. But force alone will only guaruntee another major terrorist attack.

[Frank Hipper]

A rival to Bin Laden needs to be found, or created. Sow some fucking disharmony into Al Quaeda, FFS.

"Find" some Saudi "redneck" of a cleric and start preaching how un-Islamic Al Quaeda is. If you get someone from the KSA who speaks the language with a rural accent, you have a possible grassroots anti-Al Quaeda in the making.

A choice assasination or two of some Muslim leaders that can pinned on Bin Laden would be a nice way to sow distrust and resentment.

You fight guerillas by discrediting them with their support base, by destabilising them internally; military operations against them are like trying to kill off an anthill with a .45.

[Knife]

*shrug* You go after their support structure. Britan wasn't about to invade the US to stop the cash flow to Ireland. But if you take steps to cut off the funding to the assholes, they will not be the threat they are today.

The question is, are we limiting the cash to the AQ fucks? I think, no. Atleast not in significant amounts.

[Aaron]

*shrug* You go after their support structure. Britan wasn't about to invade the US to stop the cash flow to Ireland. But if you take steps to cut off the funding to the assholes, they will not be the threat they are today.

The question is, are we limiting the cash to the AQ fucks? I think, no. Atleast not in significant amounts.

Doesn't OBL have a significant personal fortune anyways? It may be some time before cutting off their funding has any effect. Thats assuming that his family members aren't funneling him money.

[Knife]

*shrug* You go after their support structure. Britan wasn't about to invade the US to stop the cash flow to Ireland. But if you take steps to cut off the funding to the assholes, they will not be the threat they are today.

The question is, are we limiting the cash to the AQ fucks? I think, no. Atleast not in significant amounts.

Doesn't OBL have a significant personal fortune anyways? It may be some time before cutting off their funding has any effect. Thats assuming that his family members aren't funneling him money.

True, and I'm sure his own cash could keep em going for a while, but eventually the cash would be gone and new resources would be needed. These are the ones that should be negated.

[Aaron]

True, and I'm sure his own cash could keep em going for a while, but eventually the cash would be gone and new resources would be needed. These are the ones that should be negated.

I completely agree. I assume the USA has frozen or seized any AQ assets in their territory, whats the rest of the world doing about it? In particular the Saudi's.

[Knife]

True, and I'm sure his own cash could keep em going for a while, but eventually the cash would be gone and new resources would be needed. These are the ones that should be negated.

I completely agree. I assume the USA has frozen or seized any AQ assets in their territory, whats the rest of the world doing about it? In particular the Saudi's.

I'm not aware of very much, just crackdowns on 'Islam charities' in the US and some but not much, preasure on SA.

[Morilore]

"War" is a useful term to throw at American voters: that's why we are in a War against Terror rather than working to ensure peace. (That sounded corny.)

[Admiral Valdemar]

A War on Terror is as equally winnable as a War on Anger. Not to say fighting terrorism isn't right, for I am not a black & white fallacy promoter, but anyone who seriously swallows the crap Bush and Blair have stated in the past really need to wake up. Terrorism did not make a quantum leap onto the world stage because of 9/11. If we had a similar attack to those every month, then I could see there being an issue.

[Trytostaydead]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. War is a lot nicer than Genocide. Unfortunately the latter is what's needed in this type of "war." Genocide doesn't necessarily mean killing them off. But we're talking major PsyOps here and completely changing their way of life and beliefs.

[MKSheppard]

If there is one thing that history has taught us. it is that 'wars' or military campaigns will not, on their own, defeat terrorist groups and para-military groups.

From a friend of mine:

If history has taught us one thing, ignoring terrorists and paramilitary movements won't make them go away. Of course, no one remembers the revolutionary movements crushed by military force or communal counter-violence, only those that become famous through success.

[MKSheppard]

Granted, the situation in Northern Ireland is still shaky, but it's a lot more stable then it was ten years ago, thanks to people looking at the reasons behind the conflict and taking steps to resolve the issues.

Please. The PIRA is nothing more than a well-organised drug gang now,
since all their funding and training dried up in 1991 when the USSR
ceased to exist.

That's what got you a modicum of peace, their major supplier
just died off.

[HemlockGrey]

What was said about the suppression of the Vendee revolt? "A prudent mixture of firmness and clemency?"

[brianeyci]

How does shutting down the financial assets of a terrorist organization paralyze it in any way? Sure you may slow it down, but not stop it entirely. Terrorist operations aren't like the movies with high-tech explosives and state-of-the-art weapons. 9/11? Box Cutters. Beslan School Shooting? I don't remember the exact figure, but the guy in charge said it only cost a few thousand American dollars to equip his fighters. Following the money trail is one tactic that will not work.

Of course, get your hands on whatever money you can and stop the flow of money. But money concerns is on the bottom of the list of the terrorist I think.

Brian

[Beowulf]

How does shutting down the financial assets of a terrorist organization paralyze it in any way? Sure you may slow it down, but not stop it entirely. Terrorist operations aren't like the movies with high-tech explosives and state-of-the-art weapons. 9/11? Box Cutters. Beslan School Shooting? I don't remember the exact figure, but the guy in charge said it only cost a few thousand American dollars to equip his fighters. Following the money trail is one tactic that will not work.

Of course, get your hands on whatever money you can and stop the flow of money. But money concerns is on the bottom of the list of the terrorist I think.

Brian

No money = no bombs = suicide hatcheters.

[The_Nice_Guy]

What's the final objective? Shrub doesn't have the guts to say it; no leader has.

The final objective of the War on Terror, that is to say, the point at which we can claim victory, is to secularize Islamism to the extent that fundamentalists are completely marginalized and no longer receive mainstream material or moral support for acts of violence.

Attacks by Islam against the rest of the world in the name of Dar Es'salem(sp?) had been ongoing for a long time. See Indonesia and Africa. They did not have the same excuses for attacking non-muslims that they had for attacking the US, which indicates that there is probably some other factor/s at work.

Democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, or attempting to at any rate, is one action option taken. Another is to cut ties with Saudi Arabia, which, as many have noted, Shrub has yet to do.

In any case, this will be a long and drawn out conflict. Think of the Hundred Years War following the Reformation. Globalise it, toss in modern technology, and you get the War on Terror. BTW, I hate the name War on Terror. It's a misnomer that obscures the real issues.

But calling it "The War against Islamic Fundamentalism" is even worse.

Sigh.

TWG

[The Third Man]

Experience with the IRA shows that money is indeed a useful tool for combatting terrorists. It's not just about shutting of the supply, money can bribe informers (remember the IRA "supergrasses"?) and, correctly applied, it can create all manner of divisions and rivalries within the organisation, and between the terrorists and their support base. Money is an excellent tool for breaking the religious convictions that make AQ in particular so impregnable to espionage and subversion attempts.

Shep is right in this with regards to the IRA being reduced to drug-dealers and bank robbers - the various splinters and cells don't now know who's in it for the cause or just for the money, and this means trust, organisation and therefore effectiveness within the formerly cohesive movement is lost.

[Knife]

How does shutting down the financial assets of a terrorist organization paralyze it in any way? Sure you may slow it down, but not stop it entirely. Terrorist operations aren't like the movies with high-tech explosives and state-of-the-art weapons. 9/11? Box Cutters. Beslan School Shooting? I don't remember the exact figure, but the guy in charge said it only cost a few thousand American dollars to equip his fighters. Following the money trail is one tactic that will not work.

Of course, get your hands on whatever money you can and stop the flow of money. But money concerns is on the bottom of the list of the terrorist I think.

Brian

It takes money to move assets internationally. It takes money to move personell internationally. It takes money to equip and train people. The box cutters were cheap, but how much money did it take to get the recon team to the US and case the airports to determin that they couldn't get a gun or explosive past security?

[HemlockGrey]

This may be slightly off topic, but why did the British succeed in pacifying Northern Ireland and the splinter IRAs when they failed to retain control over greater Ireland? Was it simply because the area was too large?

[frigidmagi]

but why did the British succeed in pacifying Northern Ireland and the splinter IRAs when they failed to retain control over greater Ireland? Was it simply because the area was too large?

Nothing to do with area size, everything to do with population make up. The majority of southren Ireland is cathologic in regilious belief, the north is mostly protestant. Also many of the northrens can trace their family trees back to British settlers, some has far back as the 1600s, but forgein invadors none the less at the time. This gives most of the people in Northren Ireland a more inborn sense of loyality to England. Or it did then, I have no idea how they feel currently.

[frigidmagi]

Forgive me, it's Catholic.

[Coyote]

Sothis, your well meaning words focus on the West and its actions that have caused this violent reaction in the Arab world. And, since it is made very easy by the mainstream media to do so, you end up pointing at the wrong suspects.

The state of the Arab world has been one of anger, discontent, and bitterness towards the West long before America was a player in the area and even before Israel. Israel and America are simply the most useful handles to grab when Islamic fundamentalists want to reach out and grab something to swing.

The Wahhabist movement in Saudi Arabia began in the 1800's. It was the result of many generations of Arab discontent in the face of a seemingly superior West: superior technology, medicine, education, etc. This was a blow to the Arabs who had prided themselves as being the epicenter of civilization for many centuries.

For the Arabs, the Golden Age began at the era of the hijra, or the return of Mohammed and his followers from exile in Madina to Mecca. It was the first of many sweeping military victories that would go unstopped for a century. By the time of the Abbasid Dynasty in Iraq, the Islamic Empire stretched from Spain to India.

They were not able to hold on to this empire, and the last of it was stripped away in 1923 when the Caliphate was disbanded in Turkey after WW1. By then it was already obvious that the Muslim world was in a state of decline and was long since surpased by the West, who could now pretty much do as they pleased in the region unchalleneged by Arab power.

To be ruled by infidels, or kufr, was seen as a punishment by Allah for straying from the path of Islamic righteousness. Had they maintained purity, they would still be an empire today, they argued.

The Wahhabist movement is a movement of salafiyya, or an attempt to return to the pure fundamentals of Islam, that era of the first Caliphate.

This movement picked up in the late 1950's. Israel had been founded, a further black eye to Arab prestige, who saw it as the latest in a round of Crusades.

(BTW the Israeli government does in fact give free medical and housing to the Bedouin Arabs, and the Arabs in Israel proper are citizens with a higher standard of living than Arabs in Arab-ruled lands. They have education, housing, and sanitation, and there are Arab members of the Israeli PArliament, giving Irsaeli Arabs more voice in the Israeli government than they do in Arab monarchies. The situation you describe is in the Territories, West Bank and Gaza Strip)

An Egyptian by the name of Sayyid Qutb went to the US to study in 1954 and returned thoroughly disgusted by Western immorality, perversions, and focus on materialism. He wrote polemics against the West and became a leader in the Wahhabist movement.

These Arabs started what is called the Takfiri strain of Islamic Fundamentalism, which states that even a MUslim who does not follow the strictest of rules is also an infidel to be killed.

These Takfiris are the ones that killed Anwar Sadat for signing a peace treaty with Israel, and they are the ones behind such movements as the Taliban and similar radical fringe elements.

To assume that these people have a position to negotiate is to asume that we have something they want. They want nothing from us other than either conversion and strict adherence to Islam, or death. Those are the only two choices.

No, they are not the norm, and no, they do not represent everyu Muslim or Arab. They are a violent and vocal minority that has a lot of power and they are also the most 'colorful' groups so they attract an unusual amount of media attention.

To say that the US is to blame for all the unrest in the Arab world is actually to put a disproportionate amount of credit on America's ability to influence the region....

Although there are those who would like this to be true.