HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: TheMeeper ()
Date: July 29, 2008 04:54PM

Interesting press release came out of RAND Corporation earlier today. Some good facts and thoughtful analysis are presented regarding the "war on terror"... there's a link at the bottom for the full report.


News Release

OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS

media@rand.org

FOR RELEASE
Tuesday
July 29, 2008

U.S. Should Rethink "War On Terrorism" Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida

Current U.S. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities, according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.

Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers.

In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended, the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process, or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism," researchers concluded.

"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best instrument."

The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process. However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.

The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said.

Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers. In a number of cases, the groups end because they become splintered, with members joining other groups or forming new factions. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied.

Jones says the study has crucial implications for U.S. strategy in dealing with al Qaida and other terrorist groups. Since al Qaida's goal is the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, a political solution or negotiated settlement with governments in the Middle East is highly unlikely. The terrorist organization also has made numerous enemies and does not enjoy the kind of mass support received by other organizations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, largely because al Qaida has not engaged in sponsoring any welfare services, medical clinics, or hospitals.

The study recommends the United States should adopt a two-front strategy: rely on policing and intelligence work to root out the terrorist leaders in Europe, North America, Asia and the Middle East, and involve military force -- though not necessarily the U.S. military -- when insurgencies are involved.

The United States also should avoid the use of the term, "war on terror," and replace it with the term "counterterrorism." Nearly every U.S. ally, including the United Kingdom and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror," and Jones said it's more than a mere matter of semantics.

"The term we use to describe our strategy toward terrorists is important, because it affects what kinds of forces you use," Jones said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism."

Among the other findings, the study notes:
* Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups. Since 1968, approximately 62 percent of all terrorist groups have ended, while only 32 percent of religious terrorist groups have done so.
* No religious terrorist group has achieved victory since 1968.
* Size is an important predictor of a groups' fate. Large groups of more than 10,000 members have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare when groups are smaller than 1,000 members.
* There is no statistical correlation between the duration of a terrorist group and ideological motivation, economic conditions, regime type or the breadth of terrorist goals.
* Terrorist groups that become involved in an insurgency do not end easily. Nearly 50 percent of the time they end with a negotiated settlement with the government, 25 percent of the time they achieved victory and 19 percent of the time, military groups defeated them.
* Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are much more likely to be left-wing or nationalistic, and much less likely to be motivated by religion.

"The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," Jones said.

The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaida," can be found at www.rand.org.

The report was prepared by the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center that does research for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands and other defense agencies.

Learn More: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG741.pdf

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Dude ()
Date: July 30, 2008 07:31AM

Republicans have been criticizing the Clinton administration for years now about treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter--that was the right strategy.

They still try to claim the Bush administration has "kept us safe" since 9/11. Al-Qaeda has committed more violent terrorist acts since 9/11 than in their entire history up to then. Hundreds of thousands have died, many more injured, trillions of dollars spent--I wouldn't call that success.

Karl Rove and Bush like to claim that history will prove they were right--I'm certain that isn't the case. Once shrub is out of office, the trappings of power are gone, and the megaphone is taken away I think we will uncover more and more evidence of the gross incompetence, negligience, and corruption of this administration. Thank god it's almost over.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: July 30, 2008 10:04AM

The Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel on 9/11..and we have all been paying the price ever since.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2008 10:04AM by Vince(1).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: July 30, 2008 02:07PM

What the Iraq situation has done, is let Americans interact locally with folks that would never have seen an American in real life. To them we are just the guys that shoot missiles at them from afar and are cowards (see Bill Clinton and his legacy of Cruise Missile attacks). It is easy to name someone an enemy when you have no face to put to the thought. One thing that the war on terror has brought, is at least some grudging respect from folks in the middle east that America is not all about shooting cruise missiles at "suspected terror bases" in the middle of the night. Sure, there are some negatives as well, but the positives will outweigh them in the end.

Hopefully the rough peace that has been achieved in Iraq will last long enough for the US to have a safe draw-down of troops so we can get more of our folks home. Regardless of who is President, there should be a long-term strategy for the US to have a military presence in the region, even if it is by establishing some isolated combined military air base in the desert far from most Iraqi towns/cities. Until such time as we can say piss-off to the oil in the region, we have to be able to project power over there for some time to come to help ensure stability in the area, and to not allow Iran to have unchecked influence.

We have not had terrorists attacks on US soil since 9-11, that is the important thing. If police and intelligence organizations were the best answer to these terrorists groups, the IRA would never have been so successful, the attacks in Spain and Britain and other places would not have happened since 9-11, etc. Al Qaeda has chosen to hit other countries that have chosen to act like there really isn't a big problem with terrorism - thus the results.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Wrong ()
Date: July 30, 2008 02:30PM

Spain and England were targeted after 9/11 BECAUSE they participated in the war against Iraq.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: July 30, 2008 03:01PM

Wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spain and England were targeted after 9/11 BECAUSE
> they participated in the war against Iraq.

Right, and they stopped the terrorist attacks how? Ah, they didn't - and that was because of what, their amazingly effective police and intelligence services? You would think England would be good at this sort of problem and yet they had a pretty horrific attack perpetrated on them. How about Indonesia? Did they participate in Iraq in any meaningful way?

Wait lets remember, the attacks in Britain were developed by local folks weren't they? Ones that had never been the recipient of any form of military operation...

It is all a bunch of hooey. These folks will use any excuse to blow folks up and cause problems. Why? Partly because they hate ANY country that has Western values. These folks base their hatred on religion (or at least use religion as the focal point of their values) that has been ratcheting up hatred of America, the West, and Jews for centuries. We are all more vulnerable now because of the "global economy" that has arisen, and these folks are taking full advantage of that.

The military did not go into Iraq to kill Al Qaeda, they went in to remove Saddam - a goal that was made into LAW in US when Bill Clinton signed the bill that advocated "Regime Change in Iraq". So a lot of different reasons were behind the Iraq issue, not the least of which was the fact that Saddam was giving $25K US to surviving families of suicide bombers in Israel, and that he decided to play cat and mouse games with UN inspectors over potential WMD. Now that US troops _are_ in Iraq (and so is Al Qaeda) it is without a doubt much more effective for US troops to deal with terrorists than it would be for police agencies in the US if they were concentrated over here. We would have a heck of a time dealing with IEDs, truck bombs, and the like - police agencies in the US would be hard pressed to deal with terrorism without significant legal changes. Most of the issues we were dealing with lately in Iraq had more to do with Iran than Al Qaeda...

What are we going to do, ban all Muslims from entering the US? Or subject them all to criminal background checks before they get a Visa? Or put a tail on every suspected terrorist in the US?

At this point the cookie jar is broken, and we have to deal with where we are now. Looking back and saying we should or should not have done this or that is pretty much meaningless. We need to find a way to move forward - the Rand report says we should stop using "war on terror"... I am sure if Barrack Obama is elected President it will be changed to something else.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Vince(1) ()
Date: July 30, 2008 08:30PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What the Iraq situation has done, is let Americans
> interact locally with folks that would never have
> seen an American in real life. To them we are just
> the guys that shoot missiles at them from afar and
> are cowards (see Bill Clinton and his legacy of
> Cruise Missile attacks). It is easy to name
> someone an enemy when you have no face to put to
> the thought. One thing that the war on terror has
> brought, is at least some grudging respect from
> folks in the middle east that America is not all
> about shooting cruise missiles at "suspected
> terror bases" in the middle of the night. Sure,
> there are some negatives as well, but the
> positives will outweigh them in the end.
>
> Hopefully the rough peace that has been achieved
> in Iraq will last long enough for the US to have a
> safe draw-down of troops so we can get more of our
> folks home. Regardless of who is President, there
> should be a long-term strategy for the US to have
> a military presence in the region, even if it is
> by establishing some isolated combined military
> air base in the desert far from most Iraqi
> towns/cities. Until such time as we can say
> piss-off to the oil in the region, we have to be
> able to project power over there for some time to
> come to help ensure stability in the area, and to
> not allow Iran to have unchecked influence.
>
> We have not had terrorists attacks on US soil
> since 9-11, that is the important thing. If police
> and intelligence organizations were the best
> answer to these terrorists groups, the IRA would
> never have been so successful, the attacks in
> Spain and Britain and other places would not have
> happened since 9-11, etc. Al Qaeda has chosen to
> hit other countries that have chosen to act like
> there really isn't a big problem with terrorism -
> thus the results.


You are nothing more then a parrot for every right wing idiot that has been running this country for the last 8 years. Explain to me exactly what benifits this country has seen from our involvement in Iraq? Whatever you percieve them to be...do they out weigh the death of 600,000 ivilian Iraquis...the injured and dead Americans?

To some how associate the Clnton "change of regime" order to Bush's march to war is ridiculous. Clinton had in place an effective containment program...not an invasion. And of course Iraq US troops would more effectively deal with the war we started then a police force. Bush defined the effort as a war and then ineffectively managed it for 5 years.

And if McSame is elected...I am sure that's exactly what we will get...more war..perhaps with Iran next. Are you going to fight that war? Or just sit here typing your was mongering diatribe here as the typical republikan chicken hawk has done for the last 8 years? Or will you follow the example of your great leader Sen McSame and get off your as and join the military?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Alias ()
Date: July 31, 2008 01:12AM

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2012 09:02PM by Alias.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: July 31, 2008 12:09PM

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are nothing more then a parrot for every right
> wing idiot that has been running this country for
> the last 8 years. Explain to me exactly what
> benifits this country has seen from our
> involvement in Iraq? Whatever you percieve them
> to be...do they out weigh the death of 600,000
> ivilian Iraquis...the injured and dead Americans?
>

It is amazing how 600000 civilians were killed. I keep hearing these numbers, but did someone go over and count them all up? So far the only places I have seen these numbers posted is in "estimates" made by groups whose goal it is to discredit everything that has happened so far.

We didn't even kill 300000 Iraqi soldiers, so I am not sure how we managed to mis-target so badly and kill all the civilians instead. I mean heck, Saddam only killed a few thousand when he gassed the Kurds right? Are we that poor in our execution?

>
> To some how associate the Clnton "change of
> regime" order to Bush's march to war is
> ridiculous. Clinton had in place an effective
> containment program...not an invasion. And of
> course Iraq US troops would more effectively deal
> with the war we started then a police force. Bush
> defined the effort as a war and then ineffectively
> managed it for 5 years.
>

It wasn't Clinton's change regime order, it was the US Congress, and then signed into LAW by Clinton. The law did not rule out use of force, it just advocated regime change, and some funding that would be earmarked in the future to use to fund insurgents in Iraq to destabilize the government. Read the law, it is fascinating in details. You read the law and you wonder how we can approve crap like that and still think we are "above" everyone else that we shouldn't get our hands dirty in taking care of issues like that on the ground. How arrogant we must look to the rest of the world that we pass a law and provide funds to groups that have a goal of taking out a foreign government, and then act all indignant when people target us for terrorism. Yeah, I think a war was better in this case.

> And if McSame is elected...I am sure that's
> exactly what we will get...more war..perhaps with
> Iran next. Are you going to fight that war? Or
> just sit here typing your was mongering diatribe
> here as the typical republikan chicken hawk has
> done for the last 8 years? Or will you follow the
> example of your great leader Sen McSame and get
> off your as and join the military?

I was in the military, how about you? I served in the US Navy, volunteered and was discharged honorably. Yourself? I am sure McCain knows more about the horrors of war and all the inherent issues in the tip of his pinky than you even have in one cell of your body. SO please, don't sit here and act like you are some advocate for all the folks the US has abused - or been abused by. It seems you know a lot more about parrots then you let on... Where'd you learn how to spell anyway, Russia? You do know that Communism is closer to Socialism is closer to Liberalism then being Conservative right? And being conservative does not mean basing everything on religion - what you have over in the middle east is Religious Fascism, which is much more totalitarian than anything we could get to in a democratic republic. But by using Socialism you could certainly reach Communism - even Russia and China have "elections".

Do I want a war with Iran? No. Will it happen? Maybe. Israel has a lot more to say about that then we do at this point. And unfortunately for some folks (like you I presume) Israel is our staunch ally in the middle east, and we are likely to defend them even if they do open up a shooting war with Iran. And if you think that Barrack Obama would have any more influence on that issue than George Bush or John McCain, think again - over 70% of Jews vote Democratic... Iran is the ones who will bring war upon themselves, not the US. If you look at the reasons why the Russians and other countries (see China) aren't as against the Iranians having nukes, you can go back to the Cold War, and the fact that they both have huge economic interests in Iran, and in the contracts with Iran to develop nuclear capability. If Russia and China weren't playing games right now trying to destabilize the middle east, it would probably be a lot quieter over there right now, even with the US in Iraq.

If you are going to start spouting off about stuff like this, maybe you should actually do your homework, rather than just reading sites like Moveon.org, or other highly entertaining sites like that whose job it is to spread (dis)information about folks they don't like.

Edit: Here, I will even post one of the figures quoted on Wikipedia (a highly untainted source of information - right):

Iraqi Health Ministry casualty survey for the World Health Organization.[2] In January 2008 the Iraqi health minister, Dr Salih Mahdi Motlab Al-Hasanawi, reported the results of the "Iraq Family Health Survey" of 9,345 households across Iraq which was carried out in 2006 and 2007. It estimated 151,000 violence-related Iraqi deaths (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006. Employees of the Iraqi Health Ministry carried out the survey

95% uncertainty..... so even the people that live in work there have no clue. Note that covers from March 2003 to January of this year....

One more post from Wiki to support your 600000 figure:

The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data. The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths. That also includes those due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were estimated to be due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), unknown (2%). A copy of a death certificate was available for a high proportion of the reported deaths (92 per cent of those households asked to produce one).

Wow, these surveys are so accurate over there....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2008 12:20PM by Registered Voter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: 496 ()
Date: July 31, 2008 01:34PM

"I was in the military, how about you? I served in the US Navy, volunteered and was discharged honorably. Yourself?"

You know Vince's policy, don't ask, don't tell.
Would you really want him in your foxhole anyway?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: July 31, 2008 01:41PM

496 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I was in the military, how about you? I served in
> the US Navy, volunteered and was discharged
> honorably. Yourself?"
>
> You know Vince's policy, don't ask, don't tell.
> Would you really want him in your foxhole anyway?

Probably need to keep him away from anything that has a hole in it........... :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Re-thinking the War on Terror
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: July 31, 2008 01:42PM

I was back reading this wiki thing:

"The estimate is for all excess violent and nonviolent deaths"

What the hell is an "excess nonviolent death"?

Folks dying from malnutrition or something?

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **   ******   **    **   ******    **    ** 
 **     **  **    **  **   **   **    **   **   **  
 **     **  **        **  **    **         **  **   
 *********  **        *****     **   ****  *****    
 **     **  **        **  **    **    **   **  **   
 **     **  **    **  **   **   **    **   **   **  
 **     **   ******   **    **   ******    **    ** 
This forum powered by Phorum.