How Do We Deal With Terrorists

[Spock]

This Thread Is Being Created Due To Technical Difficulties With The Previous Thread Which Had Such A Great Dialogue Going

Anyway. Post Away.

[Spock]

Islamic Scholar Sentenced to Va. Prison
July 13, 2005 11:25 AM EDT
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A prominent Islamic scholar who exhorted his followers after the Sept. 11 attacks to join the Taliban and fight U.S. troops was sentenced Wednesday to life in prison.

Ali al-Timimi of Fairfax was convicted in April of soliciting others to levy war against the United States, inducing others to aid the Taliban, and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law.

[Draken]

Hmm well quite a topic! A few thoughts....

Yes the courts are one way, and yes they're slow. An even-handed judiciary that applies laws impartially is one of those things Western countries should always strive for. If we lose that by bunging suspected terrorist sympathisers in prison without due legal process then even if in the short term a few enemies of the state are off the street, we have allowed terrorism to change us, to affect our societies for the worse.

Mao was right when he said "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Terrorists or insurgents need not only logistical support, they need the tacit support of a chunk of the population to allow them to operate undetected. The urge to carry out actions that increase sympathy for terrorists among a community must be resisted, no matter how satisfying they might be in the short term. For instance, a crackdown now on the British Islamic community might flush out a few criminal militants, but the resentment caused will create more. Bombing an insurgent camp in a village might take out most of them, but the anger at the inevitable collateral damage will be directed at the people dropping the bombs, not the people they were aiming at. Again, you just create a new wave of recruits, and a community more determined to aid them.

Better to concentrate on gathering intelligence on the ground, finding the weak points in an organisation and infiltrating them. Political and religious terrorists are driven by interpretation of a doctrine - work on those current sympathisers with differing interpretations, create splits within the organisation. Close off the inlets of Mao's sea until the terrorists are isolated within what they thought was 'their' community. The number of people they can trust and places they can hide reduces to the point where their movements can be tracked. Then put in a small elite force and kill them with minimal fuss.

When fighting a counter-insurgency war, don't think that any amount of conventional firepower will win it. Think outside the box and play the insurgents at their own game. A few dozen undercover operatives on the streets of a city will protect your assets and account for more of the enemy than a tank regiment and a ground attack squadron ever can.

One example:

The CRW Wing can also trace its roots to the SAS involvement in Yemen from 1964 to 67, specifically the "Keeni-Meeni"units formed by Major Peter de la Billiere. "Keeni Meeni" is a Swahili phrase which describes a snake moving stealthily through the grass. Arab guerrillas were extremely adept at CQB in the crowded streets of Aden City. They were virtually indistinguishable from the local population and could escape easily after assassinating British politicians, soldiers, civilians and even local policemen. The Keeni Meeni units were formed to combat this. The operators would disguise themselves as locals and carry Browning High Power pistols. They would then roam the streets and ambush the Arab death squads - dark skinned Fijian operators were specially suited to this role. These operations required excellent reaction times and alertness.

(From http://students.engr.scu.edu/~jabrah...sas/page2.html)

And finally, if it ever does come down to an open pitched battle, here's how to do it: http://www.masterliness.com/a/Battle.of.Mirbat.htm

[Spock]

Draken, most appreciated. Well thought out and presented. Mao had it right on so many things, just not all of them. .....don't tell L.C.O.U.

Sadly it will be years, if ever, that we get intell on these people. Money and more money may work but it's unreliable in the long term.

[inked]

We realize they mean what they say about civilians, non-adherents, and ultimate goals.

See my posts today in the London bombing thread.

[Spock]

....sigh.....

[inked]

Spock,

Perhaps this will help your sighing ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071401030.html

[Spock]

...sometimes stating the obvious or the known, to those who refuse to see clearly, wears me out. Thanks for the article, it shows there is *some* hope.

[Nurvingiel]

That was an interesting article Inked, thanks for the link.

I don't know why it was obvious though Spock. I have no trouble believing that the support for suicide bombings on civilian targets is down, but nothing about terrorism strikes me as obvious.

Unless you still think that peace can be achieved through superior firepower.

[Spock]

...you don't get my point...but that's ok.

[Nurvingiel]

I guess not, but that is okay.

[Draken]

Don't wish to put words into Spock's mouth, but I think this thread is more about discussing how we realistically defeat terrorists rather than just stating the usual clash of cultures etc rhetoric.

Here, I think, is an example of someone confusing sonorous rhetoric with having an effective policy:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161867,00.html

Looking at the final paragraph in particular:

Britain is at War

The common Anglo-American operational response to the bombing is obvious. There must be immediate retaliation by the U.S. and U.K. -- the war must be taken to the terrorists. Whoever has harbored, funded, aided or abetted these terrorists must be held to account. If any state has played a role in these attacks, there must be consequences.

Special forces operations, strategic air strikes, and the targeted elimination of terrorist leaders must all be on the table, in addition to a meticulous hunt for the al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in London and major cities across Europe. No quarter should be given to those who have murdered innocent civilians. Make no mistake: This is an epic war between civilization and the barbaric forces that wish its destruction.

At Britain’s hour of need, the United States will stand shoulder to shoulder with her British allies, who are bloodied but unbowed. The terrorists’ fatal conceit is similar to that of the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin: underestimating the power and determination of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. This is a war that may last for decades, but will ultimately be won by the two nations that stand at the forefront of defending freedom and liberty on the world stage.

Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., is a Fellow in Anglo-American Security Policy and John Hulsman, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in European Affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

A few things worth commenting on:

"- the war must be taken to the terrorists. Whoever has harbored, funded, aided or abetted these terrorists must be held to account"
Well that marks a change in policy from that side of the pond. Contrast with this:

Now more than ever, the IRA needed not only guns to arm the hundreds of new Volunteers but also heavy weaponry to level the playing field and take on the British army. It was to America that the IRA's General Headquarters' Staff (GHQ) - the people who run the IRA's 'war' - turned for help. Across the Atlantic, the IRA's arms-buying network was overhauled and streamlined. A senior IRA figure came over from Ireland and told veteran arms supplier, George Harrison, that he was being stood down. Harrison had been diligent in his job. Throughout the seventies, he had shipped over 2,500 weapons and a million rounds of ammunition to Ireland. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) believe that this figure is a 'conservative estimate'.

(Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/america.html)

"Special forces operations, strategic air strikes, and the targeted elimination of terrorist leaders must all be on the table"
Well two out of three ain't bad. But strategic air strikes? What is it with American policy makers and strategic air strikes? Do they all have shares in Boeing or something? Whether it's a jungle in Cambodia or a rocky outcrop in Afghanistan, they just can't resist sending B52s against it. If we find a big al-Qaeda industrial complex somewhere, THEN we use strategic air strikes. But otherwise we don't because it's the one sure way of making sure the terrorists keep recruiting at twice the rate we kill them.

"Make no mistake: This is an epic war between civilization and the barbaric forces that wish its destruction."
No hysteria there, then...

"The terrorists’ fatal conceit is similar to that of the Kaiser, Hitler and Stalin: underestimating the power and determination of the Anglo-Saxon peoples"
Colin Powell would be thrilled to read that I'm sure. Plus, I've a sneaking suspicion that the Kaiser and Hitler might have know a little bit about Anglo-Saxon peoples, seeing as they were GERMAN.

I'm not saying that the Pentagon, or - heaven forbid - Whitehall, is daft enough to think like this - but there's an awful lot of muddled thinking going on about how to beat terrorists and there's always a worry that some of it will filter up high enough to do some damage.

Do we want to do 'something, anything and do it NOW' to show how tough we are and make ourselves feel better OR do we want to win the fight against terrorism? Because the two desires are, I'm afraid, pretty much mutually exclusive.

[Spock]

...Indeed.
.....facts often fly over the consciousness of those who bear us ill will.
......thanks.

[Spock]

Well at least the Patriot Act got some support here the other day. The idea that civil rights will be infringed on or certain groups discriminated against is just so much psychobabble (IMO). If we don't start doing something we're going to be mopping up blood.
At least give the enemy the credit for being able to see, read and hear what the a.c.l.u. and others want and smiling all the time as they put together their next attack.

[Insidious Rex]

Well thats a bit erroneous especially this morning. If they can do such butchery in a country like Egypt, not at all known for its lenient authority, then they can do it anywhere. Giving away every stitch of our civil liberties and constitutional rights isnt the silver bullet Im afraid. And frankly it worries me just a bit that the government wants to have the ability to search my property without ever even notifying me of it at all. Its too close to a big brother state if you ask me. As a conservative I would think you wouldnt want to give The Government such wide spread powers. Sure they may use it for "good" now but do you seriously think someone wouldnt come along at some point and start using it for their own McArthian agenda? Let em root through the undergrowth but dont tie your hands voluntarily I say. The founding fathers would agree.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well thats a bit erroneous especially this morning.

you mean If we don't start doing something we're going to be mopping up blood. I don't see how it's an error nor to believe we must do more than talk tough.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Giving away every stitch of our civil liberties and constitutional rights isnt the silver bullet Im afraid. And frankly it worries me just a bit that the government wants to have the ability to search my property without ever even notifying me of it at all.

The P.A. is hardly that. And what to YOU have to worry or hide about? Most sections of the act have never even been used and won't be until we're attacked again. The founding fathers never faced the world we are in today. I understand the principle you're alluding to but to do nothing is worse than preparing the ground work for the need which is definitely ahead.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well thats a bit erroneous especially this morning. If they can do such butchery in a country like Egypt, not at all known for its lenient authority, then they can do it anywhere. Giving away every stitch of our civil liberties and constitutional rights isnt the silver bullet Im afraid. And frankly it worries me just a bit that the government wants to have the ability to search my property without ever even notifying me of it at all. Its too close to a big brother state if you ask me. As a conservative I would think you wouldnt want to give The Government such wide spread powers. Sure they may use it for "good" now but do you seriously think someone wouldnt come along at some point and start using it for their own McArthian agenda? Let em root through the undergrowth but dont tie your hands voluntarily I say. The founding fathers would agree.

You don't know what the Founding Fathers would think. They didn't even all agree with one another. What makes you think they'd unanimously agree with you on this issue?

Anyway, skipping the Founding Fathers out of this conversation, I think you neverthless might be making some errors here, Insidious Rex.

We keep hearing all over the news about successful terrorist actions. We don't hear so frequently or so loudly about the unsuccessful ones. This is partly because successes many times must be kept under wraps, for the safety of agents in the field. It is largely because they simply aren't as big of stories.

I might point out that since September 11, security has increased a great deal for our airlines. We have not had another major terrorist attack succeed in the US since September 11.

My main argument of this post is that there have been successes in the war on terror, because of our increased security. These stories don't linger in the headlines, though. Yesterday I looked on BBC for the article about the second terrorist attack on London, the one that failed, but even though the event had happened the day before, I couldn't find the article! It's not such "big" news.

The fact that a terrorist attack has succeeded in Egypt does not mean "terrorists can attack anywhere."

[brownjenkins]

the only way to truly stop terrorism is to address the issues that motivate them in the first place

that or near complete annihilation of the dissatisfied people, much like we did with the native americans in the US... but i don't think the modern world would stand for that kind of thing

anything in between these to extremes is likely to do more harm than good

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the only way to truly stop terrorism is to address the issues that motivate them in the first place

You need to put -IMO- to that.
And addressing the issues????? When the leaders of the fanatics calls for war on western civilization that's not an option.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

that or near complete annihilation of the dissatisfied people, much like we did with the native americans in the US... but i don't think the modern world would stand for that kind of thing anything in between these to extremes is likely to do more harm than good

Now thats what is needed. Not community singing. I agree the political correctness and lack of will in general will not permit that solution to happen in the extreme.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

You need to put -IMO- to that.
And addressing the issues????? When the leaders of the fanatics calls for war on western civilization that's not an option.

i've always thought that the use of IMO was somewhat redundant... i express nothing but my own opinion

humans do things for reasons, and while there is a small percentage of true nutcases (or "fanatics")... the leaders who have a huge following are the ones who play on real issues and use them to their advantage

large-scale retaliatory operations that kill innocent civilians is a real issue (no matter how justified)... enforcing UN sanctions upon iraq while not enforcing those upon israel is a real issue... supporting and supplying weapons to "allies" in the middle east whose systems of government are no where near democratic or free, and are often quite oppressive, is a real issue

i have no problem with the idea of hunting down the leadership of these organizations, but until we start to deal with the real issues that give these organizations the power to exist and influence a large portion of the population in that part of the world we are doomed to and endless cycle of new terrorist leadership as we kill the old ones off

people don't give up their lives and take those of others purely for reasons like religion... they do it because they feel threatened

Originally Posted by Spock

Now thats what is needed. Not community singing. I agree the political correctness and lack of will in general will not permit that solution to happen in the extreme.

i hope you are not just saying that wiping out all muslims is the best solution