How best to put terrorists out of business?

[Banquo's Ghost]

The RAND Corporation has recently published an interesting study into the effectiveness of assorted counter-terrorism methods using an analysis of 648 groups that have been put out of business (1968-2006). Once it manages to clarify the significant differences between terrorist groups and insurgencies (and then on to understand the drivers behind the terrorist, ie geopolitical, ideological etc) the think tank reaches some useful conclusions.

The Economist considers the report here (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11950796&source=features_box_main), and summarises neatly the conclusion - very simply (and thus not an exact précis) military force is largely ineffective, and the idea of a "War on Terrorism" redundant. Key successes are brought by removing the political framework that enables terrorists to flourish, bringing them in from the political cold and targetted intelligence and police work.

The report goes on to give a considered view on how al-Qaeda would best be neutralised - particularly in the light of its current incarnation and fragmentation (and how best to encourage that splintering further, which is a fascinating proposal) rather than the mythic creation of 9-11.

The summary is interesting, the full report (here in pdf (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG741-1/)) somewhat more so.

[CountArach]

This doesn't address the underlying problem - how do we get them to stop hating our freedom?

Seriously though it looks like an interesting study and I'll read it in more depth tomorrow and post my thoughts then.

[PanzerJaeger]

Military force and good policing are not mutually exclusive. The US uses both. The goal in Afghanistan and Iraq is not simply to try and kill as many muslim terrorists as possible (although thats been a resounding success), but to set up stable democracies in the Middle East. If we can be successful with that, along with promoting democratic movements across the region, much of the psychological reasoning behind the jihadist movement will lose it's justification. As has been documented countless times before, muslim anger towards the West actually has a lot to do with domestic repression.

It may have been more useful to examine only terrorist groups similar in makeup to AQ - global, stateless, jihadist, etc. Of course military force wouldn't have been helpful in stopping the Oklahoma City bombers or the Japanese subway chemical attackers, but does that really help us?

[KukriKhan]

So:
1) Find, fix and eliminate the group leadership (40% reduction)
2) Figure out how to bring some of the group into the political 'tent' (43% reduction)

Leaving 17% unaccounted for. I know that's a drastic oversimplification, but it leads to the same conclusion: There will always be terrorism. There will never be a time when several someones will not resort to multiple random sensationalist civilian killings to draw attention to their cause.

It's like a hurricane or earthquake. Foreseeable with good intel; mitigateable through pre-planned security measures; clean-upable after it hits. But always: inevitable.

[Devastatin Dave]

rather than the mythic creation of 9-11.

.

:wall:

[Banquo's Ghost]

:wall:

I see how I may have warranted your frustration.

By characterising the "mythic creation of 9-11" in the context of my sentence on al-Qaeda, I was referring to the Hydra-headed International Network of Faceless Uber-Terrorists Under the Children's Beds - which was the monolithic enemy conjured to frighten away civil liberties and justify assorted invasions. Al-Qaeda was never this, and has fragmented further into a range of petty and conflicting groups.

I did not mean to argue that the 9-11 attacks were in any way other than real, and I apologise to anyone who may have been offended by me appearing to such an inference.

:embarassed:

[Devastatin Dave]

I see how I may have warranted your frustration.

By characterising the "mythic creation of 9-11" in the context of my sentence on al-Qaeda, I was referring to the Hydra-headed International Network of Faceless Uber-Terrorists Under the Children's Beds - which was the monolithic enemy conjured to frighten away civil liberties and justify assorted invasions. Al-Qaeda was never this, and has fragmented further into a range of petty and conflicting groups.

I did not mean to argue that the 9-11 attacks were in any way other than real, and I apologise to anyone who may have been offended by me appearing to such an inference.

:embarassed:

But you obviously feel that even though A-Qaeda has pulled off some of the most horrific terrorist events around the world, its more of a "boogey-man" than a real threat. I'm sure you are one of those that believes "if only we help those poor middle easterners understand and if we just give them more aid and helped their poverty they'll be no terrorism"...
Got news for you, most of these attacks were done by western educated, well off individuals that simply want us dead for what we are and not what we have.
BG, when you say "removing the political framework that enables terrorists to flourish", how the hell do you expect it to be done? You don't do it without military means unless you are suggesting that WE are are to remove our political framework and become an Islamic theocracy because thats the only way to get them to not attack us. You're post is very high brow, snobbish horse squeeze that works well when discussing this with other intellectuals over a cigar and brandy, but unfortunately it has the same practical use as mammary glands on a male taurus.

[Fragony]

BG, when you say "removing the political framework that enables terrorists to flourish", how the hell do you expect it to be done? You don't do it without military means unless you are suggesting that WE are are to remove our political framework and become an Islamic theocracy because thats the only way to get them to not attack us.

Uh-huh :yes:

My say, just shoot them and allow it to escalate, if the next leadership is worse then the last all the better, public opinion has to slap them in the face at some time. Happens in Iraq.

[Tribesman]

You're post is very high brow, snobbish horse squeeze that works well when discussing this with other intellectuals over a cigar and brandy
So Dave you ain't one of them intellectuals then I take it ?
Thats a surprise .
hmmm ....what is it again ?
Poeple who use and develop their mental faculties ?
Employ rational thought instead of emosional hysteria ?
Oh them damn intellectuals , you can see why both uncle Adolf and uncle Joe hated them intellectuals , nice to know you are in good company there Dave:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Banquo's Ghost]

But you obviously feel that even though A-Qaeda has pulled off some of the most horrific terrorist events around the world, its more of a "boogey-man" than a real threat. I'm sure you are one of those that believes "if only we help those poor middle easterners understand and if we just give them more aid and helped their poverty they'll be no terrorism"...
Got news for you, most of these attacks were done by western educated, well off individuals that simply want us dead for what we are and not what we have.
BG, when you say "removing the political framework that enables terrorists to flourish", how the hell do you expect it to be done? You don't do it without military means unless you are suggesting that WE are are to remove our political framework and become an Islamic theocracy because thats the only way to get them to not attack us. You're post is very high brow, snobbish horse squeeze that works well when discussing this with other intellectuals over a cigar and brandy, but unfortunately it has the same practical use as mammary glands on a male taurus.

Ah, I see.

Well, I have some small experience with counter-terrorism measures, and was offering the link to a piece of research done by an organisation that has advised the United States defence department on many issues. Because of this, it provides some insight as to how the USA may be adapting its approach. Since the research offers policy advice that is well-considered and likely to increase effectiveness against terrorist threats such as al-Qaeda - through understanding, rather than rhetoric - I supposed some might be keen to read and reflect.

"Removing the political framework that enables terrorists to flourish" - a concept that you appear to have some issue with - can be done in a number of ways. Let us look at Afghanistan as an example. The coalition removed the "enabling political framework" (aka the Taliban) through military action but this has proven to be unsatisfactory in the longer run. There is however, a further framework - characterised rather harshly by your "help their poverty" jibe - on which we are spending a great deal of blood and treasure; to wit, the alleviation of the economic conditions that enabled - and continue to enable - terrorism to establish. It is perfectly possible to accomplish the latter removal through economic power alone - in certain circumstances.

If I considered al-Qaeda a mere boogey-man, the subject of how to defeat them would not be of interest to me. My contention is that they are an enemy that we have consistently mischaracterised, and therefore have made rather too many mistakes in combating them and the roots of their influence.

I understand that intellectual endeavours are looked down upon by some in every country, but it is only by understanding one's enemy that one makes effective progress. Frothing at the mouth in righteous fury may be satisfactorily macho, but to date, has proven less effective than we might wish.

Having said that, you will always be welcome at my club. :toff:

[Adrian II]

Having said that, you will always be welcome at my club. :toff:There goes the neighbourhood. And the drinks cabinet. :no:

Anyway, much as I agree with the general trust of the argument, I don't believe that alleviating poverty has anything to do with this. I believe that tackling the closed nature of Arab societies is more important. The Arab region is intellectually backward by just about every criterium. The same goes for its political regimes. Combine the two and we can understand why disgruntled middle class people in the Arab world regard radical Islam as a panacee. By filling the gaps left by those governments in the social arena (education, health care, disaster reloief, fighting corruption) they gain mass adherence in some places.

[Devastatin Dave]

There goes the neighbourhood. And the drinks cabinet. :no:

Anyway, much as I agree with the general trust of the argument, I don't believe that alleviating poverty has anything to do with this. I believe that tackling the closed nature of Arab societies is more important. The Arab region is intellectually backward by just about every criterium. The same goes for its political regimes. Combine the two and we can understand why disgruntled middle class people in the Arab world regard radical Islam as a panacee. By filling the gaps left by those governments in the social arena (education, health care, disaster reloief, fighting corruption) they gain mass adherence in some places.

Again, my question is "how"?

[Adrian II]

Again, my question is "how"?Put George Soros on it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Anyway, much as I agree with the general trust of the argument, I don't believe that alleviating poverty has anything to do with this. I believe that tackling the closed nature of Arab societies is more important. The Arab region is intellectually backward by just about every criterium. The same goes for its political regimes. Combine the two and we can understand why disgruntled middle class people in the Arab world regard radical Islam as a panacee. By filling the gaps left by those governments in the social arena (education, health care, disaster reloief, fighting corruption) they gain mass adherence in some places.

I would agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I don't think you can dismiss economic factors - especially as the efficacy of those social factors you list are limited by poverty. Whilst some of the ideological impetus behind radical Islam is certainly middle class (and some actors, as DD noted in regard to the attacks on the US) a majority of the foot soldiers are drawn from the disenfranchised.

This is particularly true of religious terrorism - the promise of an afterlife of luxury unobtainable without martyrdom is particularly attractive to those with nothing. Remember also that Islamic terrorism is largely, but not wholly an Arab phenomenon (but in every case intellectually bankrupt).

[rory_20_uk]

Legalise drugs. Suddenly, the value drops in making the stuff. No need for the hated foe to come in and destroy livelihoods. I imagine all terrorists have their hand in some aspect of drug production and distribution and cutting this source of income is the easiest to do, along with freeing up loads of narcotics police to do something more productive.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

I would agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I don't think you can dismiss economic factors - especially as the efficacy of those social factors you list are limited by poverty. Whilst some of the ideological impetus behind radical Islam is certainly middle class (and some actors, as DD noted in regard to the attacks on the US) a majority of the foot soldiers are drawn from the disenfranchised.


Crudely put the actors in 9/11 were AQ/Black Shirts/SS. They were fanatics, educated and serene in their belief that they are right and everyone else should die for their wrong ideas.

The Brown Shirts or the Taliban are the ones more dependent on the disenfranchised.

While addressing economic factors would only remove the Brown Shirts... who the Black Shirts will remove once they have enough power anyhow. So the Black Shirts are the leadership and framework that have to be removed... until one comes along that is open to negotiation. So you need to know who to remove and who to keep. No point playing whack-a-mole and killing all the Jerry Adams leaving the Real IRA.

Also when adjusting the framework the ones who are supplying finicial support need to be removed, either through peaceful means or assassination as warranted. You must remove the masters as surely as the slave.

[KukriKhan]

Legalise drugs. Suddenly, the value drops in making the stuff. No need for the hated foe to come in and destroy livelihoods. I imagine all terrorists have their hand in some aspect of drug production and distribution and cutting this source of income is the easiest to do, along with freeing up loads of narcotics police to do something more productive.

~:smoking:

That may end up being the most ironically useful suggestion I've heard in favor of legalization of drug use. If it can be shown that much or most terrorist funding comes from such source. Bravo, rory for answering "How best to put terrorists out of business?".

[Tribesman]

That may end up being the most ironically useful suggestion I've heard in favor of legalization of drug use. If it can be shown that much or most terrorist funding comes from such source. Bravo, rory for answering "How best to put terrorists out of business?".
What about all the other common illegal sources ?
Bank robberies , frieght hijackings , fuel laundering , cigarette smuggling , kidnapping , extortion , illegal gambling , people trafficing , prostitution ...if there is money in it the terrorists and their financiers are in it up to their necks grabbing as much as they can .
Then there are all the legal fronts , pubs , hotels , haulage firms , car dealerships , shops , taxis , finance , construction , mining , not to mention "charities".....they like all that money too .
Terrorism is a big money business and the drug trade is only one aspect of it , clamp down on one source and they shift into another .

[Adrian II]

Terrorism is a big money business and the drug trade is only one aspect of it , clamp down on one source and they shift into another .I'm afraid this is true. That was a smart idea from Rory anyway, for a host of reasons, but it is not going to seriously cut terrorist funding.

I would love to have Dâriûsh' view on this issue. He is usually completely fed up with the crudity and stupidity on all sides of it, but I hope he can find it in himself to comment at length for a change.