Questions for those Opposing the US' strategy in the War on Terror

[Seamus Fermanagh]

To gain perspective on your opposition, I would like input on the following questions.


1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?

1a - If so, how and in what measure?

1b - Overarching constraints?


2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?

2a - If so, how and in what measure?

2b - Overarching constraints?


I will now await your thoughts and refrain from replying (my goal is information not argument) for 2 days or 50 responses.

[econ21]

I guess I am qualified to be one of the posters responding, as I am opposed to the US Strategy in the "War on Terror". This is primarily as an opponent of the Iraq War (more anon). But also because I think the whole concept of a "War on Terror" is an Orwellian construct. There is no "war" with any terrorists. And "terror" is not a thing one can wage war on. The whole rhetoric masks the true challenge from Islamic terrorism. And it justifies a lot of undesirable acts done because "there's a war on".



1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?

1a - If so, how and in what measure?

I would want to look to historical examples. The British Army in Northern Ireland might be one. I would say that they held the IRA to a bloody stalemate, making a political solution more attractive to the terrorists.

In part, this was a kind of military occupation: bodies on the ground, to stop wider sectarian conflicts spilling over ("civil war"). But the military also played a role in getting intelligence on the provos and I think infilitration, for example with super-grasses, greatly weakened the fighting ability of the terrorists.

There are probably other examples I know less about - it would be interesting to hear them discussed.


1b - Overarching constraints?

Pursuing the Northern Ireland example, one constraint was to try to avoid over-antagonising the natural Republican constituency of the Provos and breeding more terrorists. When the military were heavy handed - for example, Bloody Sunday - they did great harm to the anti-terrorist cause. Shoot-to-kill might be another example.

Another factor was the political will behind the military force. In the UK, the existence of the Unionist majority was probably critical - they made it almost impossible for the UK government to abandon the Union. Abandoning Ulster would have led to open Unionist-Republican conflict that probably would have made the Troubles look like a tea party.

In this case, I'd say the struggle was like a war of attrition and there was little chance the British would blink.

Turning to the War on Terror, I think Afghanistan may well be a case where military force was used sucessfully against a terrorist opponent. OBL and his immediate AQ network has been severely impaired by the military action against the Taliban. Working through proxy forces was probably the best strategy too, with the least risk of alienating the Afghans. I am not that confident about the will of the US or others to stay the course, though.

The invasion of Iraq is irrelevant here, as Saddam had little to do with terrorism against the US. The invasion of Iraq probably has bred many new anti-Western terrorists in Iraq and outside, though.

I should also note in parenthesis that the UK never referred to the British army as fighting a "war" in Northern Ireland, although there seems to be more of a case for regarding the troubles as a kind of war than there is regarding US policy post-9/11 as being a "war" on "terror". Classifying the action as a war would strengthened the hand of the terrorists - who wanted to be seen as soldiers - and further alienate their civilian sympathesisers. It might even have weakened mainland support for the Union - people expect wars to end within a reasonable number of years and often only understand them if they are personally threatened.


2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?

2a - If so, how and in what measure?

If the military force is sufficient, of course it can prevail. People often point to the British Army in Malaysia, but I guess you could point to many examples of a powerful colonial power crushing an indigenous resistance - for example, the tail end of the Boer War, perhaps.

It might be done by just overpowering the resistance - rounding up the civilians, restricting mobility etc (Boer War). Or it might be done through more of a hearts and minds approach (Malaysia).


2b - Overarching constraints?

As with terrorism, winning over the civilian population hosting the insurgents can be important, unless you are going for the all-out Boer War type approach (which will probably bite you in the ass later - Britain did not keep control of S.Africa for very long after the war). Also critical is the will behind the military force.

In addition, foreign support for the insurgents is very important. Terrorists can make do with block cutters, fertilisers, a few thousand dollars etc. But insurgents needs serious resources. Vietnam might be a case in point - without Russia and China supplying the VC and NVA, the US would not have lost. Similarly with Iran and Syria in the Iraq, Lebanon etc

In conclusion, I guess I see military force as not the solution to the problem of terrorism or insurgency; it may be necessary but not sufficient for a solution. Because you can't easily identify the terrorists or insurgents, you cannot beat them in a simple offensive (unless they try a Tet Offensive or something). It's more a question of a war of attrition and of just not losing. Intelligence probably plays the key role in actively combating terrorism and insurgency. Beyond that, I would look to politics - addressing the grievances of those supporting the terrorists - and to diplomacy to be key to cutting off the oxygen of the terrorists or insurgents.

Going back to the War on Terror, I fear that Afghanistan is turning into an anti-insurgency action. I am not convinced the US or NATO should be on the ground fighting it. I doubt those countries have the will to see it through. And I think the Afghans are a fiercely proud people who will take against foreign soldiers fighting other Afghans. Better to rely on proxy forces and, if possible, cut a deal with the Taliban or ex-Taliban.

On Iraq, what can you say? I would not start from here. But given that we are where we are, I also think US/UK military force is currently counter-productive. We don't have the support of most of the people. We don't seem able to commit to bring in enough men on the ground to achieve security outside of the green zone. We can't even stop foreign support for the insurgency leaking in from Iran and Syria.

Given that, I think it would be better to pull out and let the locals reach a moduus vivendi with each other. Sure we can provide dollars for the side we favour, although to be honest most of them seem pretty unappealing. Providing foreign soldiers to be shot at and to unite against seems foolish. If withdrawing leads to civil war or an Iranian take-over, I am not sure that is so different from what we currently have. We should try to co-exist with whoever the Iraqis (and Iranians and whoever) choose to lead them. If they start flying planes into our buildings, we react, but until then I am not sure it is our insurgency to fight.

[Soulforged]

1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?Yes.

1a - If so, how and in what measure?As ultima ratio measure and always respecting civilian population.

1b - Overarching constraints?No.

2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?Yes.

2a - If so, how and in what measure?Idem.

2b - Overarching constraints?No.

NOTE: I don't have a lot of knowledge on military strategy, so I gave my moral point of view.

NOTE: What I really hate about the strategy, is another aspect, more philosophic if you want, and it's how it defines itself "War on Terror", wich is of course an imposibility, and an empirical impossibility generates absurdities in the world, absurdities seen in the every day life...

[ajaxfetish]

Econ's is a very well-reasoned and insightful post. I agree with his points fully. Military force has a part to play in anti-terror operations, but it is a subordinate part. Terrorism can only be rooted out by attacking its roots or causes. It's a social and ideological problem, with a military aspect; not the other way around.

Ajax

[Pannonian]

Econ's is a very well-reasoned and insightful post. I agree with his points fully. Military force has a part to play in anti-terror operations, but it is a subordinate part. Terrorism can only be rooted out by attacking its roots or causes. It's a social and ideological problem, with a military aspect; not the other way around.

Ajax
To adapt a famous phrase, tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism. A similar phrase was once voiced by a certain Shadow Home Secretary.

[rory_20_uk]

The roots of terrorism / guerila warfare can either be converted or destroyed. In modern societies we are unwilling to destroy them fully, so only conversion remains.

If the US killed everyone involved in afghanistan they would have "won". Attacking and leaving others alive is performing an action which is politically motivated.

In essence econ21 wrote a magnificant summary.

~:smoking:

[Petrus]

To gain perspective on your opposition, I would like input on the following questions.


1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?

1a - If so, how and in what measure?



It can be, but it is not necessary the case.
Terrorism is but a tool to reach a political goal.
Fighting terrorism is a police work, that might require the use of military force, but concerns mostly information gathering, just like any criminal affair.

Winning, in this case, can only mean preventing terrorists to reach their political goals and promoting successfully your own political objectives.



1b - Overarching constraints?



Whether being worst than terrorists to force populations to adhere to your objectives or being a credible and efficient alternative to terrorists.

The first case means the use of unrestricted military violence against civilian populations on a very large scale and during a long period, probably never ending as colonization in north Africa has shown it.

The second case means showing population your military might and using it to protect those who follow the political objective you try to promote and to fight terrorists efficiently.
This supposes a very large amount of soldiers dispatched on the largest possible area during a very long time and supporting important loses among your soldiers.

In both cases, terrorists are only a secondary objective, the main objective being the civilian population and the use of military force can only be one of the tools used to reach such an objective.



2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?

2a - If so, how and in what measure?



Yes it can.



2b - Overarching constraints?


I will use the example of the most recent successful anti- guerrilla I know, the French army in Algeria in the late 1950’s.

A fortified line of several layers of barbed wires, mine fields, electrical lines was built upon both the eastern and western frontier of Algeria, it was several hundred kilometres long.
A zone of several kilometres behind the line was cleared of vegetation to destroy as much camouflage as possible.
It included artillery batteries automatically fired and guided by radar.
The active defence was assured by very mobile troops alerted immediately and automatically of any frontier violation.

These measures almost completely prevented supply in weapons and ammo of the Algerian guerrilla.


The civilian populations of the areas that were the most difficult to control was “regrouped” into camps where they could be under the eye of the local troops and prevented them to supply food, hiding and resting place to the guerrilla.

This concerned, I think, about two millions persons and created and ideal situation for the guerrilla to make propaganda for its cause.


The military operations were led by very mobile forces, mainly light infantry and paratroopers carried by helicopters. Those forces were followed by classical infantry that occupied the operation zone while the mobile troops tracked the detected insurgents, mounted ambushes etc…
The operations lasted for a few days after what they displaced themselves to another area while the classical infantry remained on the zone to prevent further guerrilla activity.

The combination of those measures led to the drowning of the guerrilla that found itself under heavy pressure, unable to rest and unable to refit.

But the main measure that permitted to fight the guerrilla efficiently was the use of torture.

As it was almost impossible to reach very mobile insurgents hidden in large zones without roads or paths and with important relief, the gathering of information was crucial: an armoured division is useless if it has nothing to fight.
The basic information was provided by local troops, patrols etc … and by population, whether by force (torture) or by gaining the support of villages.
During the operations, “suspects” captured in the area as well as prisoners were driven to battalion or regimental torture centres that allowed immediate exploitation of the information on the field.

After about 18 months the guerrilla had almost completely disappeared of Algeria.


Counter guerrilla war in Algeria required :
-the use of a very large number of soldiers, as lightly equipped as possible to reduce the logistic weight;
-military occupation of the largest possible territory to prevent guerrilla activity;
-construction of a very important fortification to block guerrilla logistics;
-systematic use of torture to get effective operational information;
-deportation of about 20% of the Algerian civilian population to control it and create dead zones for the insurgents;


From a military point of view this was a victory.

As it had no interest outside the proclamation of the crushing of the guerrilla, it proved to be a total failure.

The civilian populations that were for most not concerned or ignorant of the war were suddenly crushed by it, they were deported, tortured, killed, their villages and crops were destroyed, the young men were killed or disappeared etc …

They realized they had an enemy and that this enemy was the French army.

When the military pressure stopped after the start of the negotiations that led to independence, the guerrilla fulfilled its ranks within a few weeks.

Just like in the case of terrorism, military might was only a tool that could be used to fight guerrilla soldiers but was insufficient to win the war and heavily contributed to lose it by its actions and the violence it caused to the populations.

Without a clear and reachable political objective, the use of military force was useless : while the French army won upon the field, France lost because of her inability to overtake the military part of her task. While the Algerian guerrilla lost upon the field, it won the war because of its clear objectives and its ability to promote it.

The limits between guerrilla and terrorism are not always very clear, but in both cases military operations are only a very limited part of the solution and cannot provide a global solution to a conflict.

In any case, terrorism/guerrilla will never stop fully due to military operations.



I will now await your thoughts and refrain from replying (my goal is information not argument) for 2 days or 50 responses.

[fallen851]

Sigh... when I see people trying to terrorize terror and destroy destruction it sickens me.

I'm afriad you guys fail to understand terrorism fully, the tactics used and the outcomes that happen, whether the outcome is intentional or unintentional.

How do you defeat terrorism and insurgency?

You do not defeat it with military tactics or strategy. War is not the answer to terrorism. First you must understand terrorism.

How does it work?

It is very simple actually. Every terrorist group wants to see the political power they don't like lose power, so often think up a terrible violent act to commit. Once they commit it, people don't like the terrorist group. Except then the nation they commit the act on, usually also reacts violently, and to much greater degree. In other words the response does not mirror the initial act. Then the responding nation looks worse than the terrorist group, and the nation loses political power.

So the United States responds violently invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Just like when the British responded violently to the Indians or the Boston Tea Party. Just like when the Russian government responded violently in 1905. Just like when Hitler responded violently to the Free French Resistance. Each time the response was greater than the initial violence, and the terrorist group and the nations harboring the "terrorist" looked like the victim. The biggest mistake these nations made is responding to the violence caused by a few, by punishing lots of people, many of whom likely disagreed with the terrorists, but as the old saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And of course the responding nations often round up everyone they believe that is associated with the "enemy" and torture them for them good measure, further reducing their standing.

Responding with violence has never worked, and has always compromised the position of the responding nation.

In other words, Osama Bin Laden already won. The US lost political power worldwide, and has been weakened in this respect. It was his objective, game over. He knows he can't kill every citizen, or make US power crumble quickly. The only thing that can defeat US power, is the same thing that defeats every empire, overexpansion.

Bush's strategy played right into his hands. Osama won the battle for the minds of the people, and put the US into a war without an end in sight. He did more he can have imagined.

The question is now, how can we salvage what we've done, and restore the world order so that the US is as respected as they were pre-9/11 response? Then how do we put terrorist organizations on the road to political isolation?

The answer is to try and win back the minds of people.

Imagine this scenario:

Terrorist group operates and recruits from town Kafa. US military gets this intelligence, and bombs the town. Terrorist recruiters ask "who wants to join this crusade against those who bombed the town and killed innocent women and children ?" People then join the terrorists, wanting to avenge the bombing of their town and the killing of innocent people since civilian deaths in war happen. US loses.

Now imagine this scenario:

Terrorist group operates and recruits from town Kafa. US military gets this intelligence and blankets the town with food supplies. Terrorist recruiters ask "who wants to join this crusade against the US?". People respond "why bite the hand that feeds us?" Terrorists can no longer recruit without being violent, which quickly erodes political support inside the town. Terrorist eventually have to leave to recruit. US wins.

That is how you combat terrorism. You shouldn't be worried about killing people. You should be worried about making friends. For terrorism to be successful, it is dependent on the nation they terrorize to respond with such force as to make the nation the appear as the aggressor. As is well known, this had already been done, the US appears to be the aggressor to most of the Arab street, reducing the amount of friends the US has in this region, and this is a war for friends.

The US military should learn from Gandhi, not Israel.

The US military could even go so far as it drop its guns, and become the victim. To build schools and places, and show how savage the terrorists can be. Then they will win. You can only win if you appear less savage as the terrorists. If you appear more savage, more bloodthristy as Bush has appeared, then you've already lost.

[sharrukin]

Sigh... when I see people trying to terrorize terror and destroy destruction it sickens me.

How do you defeat terrorism and insurgency?

You do not defeat it with military tactics or strategy. War is not the answer to terrorism. First you must understand terrorism.

How does it work?

It is very simple actually. Every terrorist group wants to see the political power they don't like lose power, so often think up a terrible violent act to commit. Once they commit it, people don't like the terrorist group. Except then the nation they commit the act on, usually also reacts violently, and to much greater degree. In other words the response does not mirror the initial act. Then the responding nation looks worse than the terrorist group, and the nation loses political power.

So the United States responds violently invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Just like when the British responded violently to the Indians or the Boston Tea Party. Just like when the Russian government responded violently in 1905. Just like when Hitler responded violently to the Free French Resistance. Each time the response was greater than the initial violence, and the terrorist group and the nations harboring the "terrorist" looked like the victim.

And of course the responding nations often round up everyone they believe that is associated with the "enemy" and torture them for them good measure, further reducing their standing.

Responding with violence has never worked, and has always compromised the position of the responding nation.

In other words, Osama Bin Laden already won. The US lost political power worldwide, and has been weakened in this respect. It was his objective, game over. He knows he can't kill every citizen, or make US power crumble quickly. The only thing that can defeat US power, is the same thing that defeats every empire, overexpansion.

Bush's strategy played right into his hands.

He won the battle for the minds of the people, and put the US into a war without an end in sight. He did more he can have imagined.

The question is now, how can we salvage what we've done, and restore the world order so that the US is as respected as they were pre-9/11 response? Then how do we put terrorist organizations on the road to political isolation?

The answer is to try and win back the minds of people.

Imagine this scenario:

Terrorist group operates and recruits from town Kafa. US military gets this intelligence, and bombs the town. Terrorist recruiters ask "who wants to join this crusade against those who bombed the town and killed innocent women and children ?" People then join the terrorists, wanting to avenge the bombing of their town and the killing of innocent people since civilian deaths in war happen. US loses.

Now imagine this scenario:

Terrorist group operates and recruits from town Kafa. US military gets this intelligence and blankets the town with food supplies. Terrorist recruiters ask "who wants to join this crusade against the US?". People respond "why bite the hand that feeds us? Terrorists can no longer recruit without being violent, which quickly erodes political support inside the town. Terrorist eventually have to leave to recruit. US wins.

That is how you combat terrorism. You shouldn't be worried about killing people. You should be worried about making friends.

The US military should learn from Gandhi, not Israel.

The US military could even go so far as it drop its guns, and become the victim. To build schools and places, and show how savage the terrorists can be. Then they will win. You can only win if you appear less savage as the terrorists. If you appear more savage, more bloodthristy as Bush has appeared, then you've already lost.

Gandhi is dead. They killed him. Later they murdered millions when they split down the middle separating Muslim from Hindu. Israel tried your method once as well. It worked! Everyone says Hitler is a bad man, and shouldn't have slaughtered those 6 million Jews! Modern day Israel on the other hand, lost because everyone says they are not very nice. They haven't been slaughtered so there is an upside.

The British violent response to the Indians is now called the United States, and they have things called reservations where whats left of the Indians live.

[Pannonian]

Gandhi is dead. They killed him. Later they murdered millions when they split down the middle separating Muslim from Hindu. Israel tried your method once as well. It worked! Everyone says Hitler is a bad man, and shouldn't have slaughtered those 6 million Jews! Modern day Israel on the other hand, lost because everyone says they are not very nice. They haven't been slaughtered so there is an upside.

Godwin in post 9. Not a bad effort.

[sharrukin]

Godwin in post 9. Not a bad effort.

No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue

In other words, an english translation please.

[Banquo's Ghost]

No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue

In other words, an english translation please.

Kids today. :rolleyes:

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).

Knowing this kind of thing shows one hung around Usenet for far too long in one's youth. :smile:

[sharrukin]

Kids today. :rolleyes:

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).

Knowing this kind of thing shows one hung around Usenet for far too long in one's youth. :smile:

Seems Godwin is getting a little selective these days, wouldn't you say?

Post No#-8 "Just like when Hitler responded violently to the Free French Resistance."

In addition, when discussing a more passive response to Israel's terrorist enemies, it would be more than a little ridiculous, not to mention what happened the last time Jews thought passive behaviour would save their bacon.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Seems Godwin is getting a little selective these days, wouldn't you say?

Post No#-8 "Just like when Hitler responded violently to the Free French Resistance."

In addition, when discussing a more passive response to Israel's terrorist enemies, it would be more than a little ridiculous, not to mention what happened the last time Jews thought passive behaviour would save their bacon.

No need to haul off on me, old fruit. I wasn't passing comment, merely providing information.

[fallen851]

Gandhi is dead. They killed him. Later they murdered millions when they split down the middle separating Muslim from Hindu. Israel tried your method once as well. It worked! Everyone says Hitler is a bad man, and shouldn't have slaughtered those 6 million Jews! Modern day Israel on the other hand, lost because everyone says they are not very nice. They haven't been slaughtered so there is an upside.

The British violent response to the Indians is now called the United States, and they have things called reservations where whats left of the Indians live.

Is this a joke? United States-Indians? You mean Native Americans? I meant the British violent response the Indians in India...

Did you go to school?

And when was what Gandhi did passive? And once Gandhi died, did things get better when people were violent? Doesn't look like it to me.

Gandhi was very active, and accomplished many things.

The Jews were passive when they lined up to go to death. They had no power, they made no choice. Gandhi had full power when he organized strikes, he made the choice to be beaten without fighting back. The Jews did not, they were beaten without consent. Gandhi did it for a reason, so he could say, "they cannot defeat my arguement, so they will be violent towards me" and he looked like the victim to people.

In fact this Jewish point is excellent, Germany made the Jews look like the aggressor, and it was as if the Germans were the victims to Jews. So it justified killing them.

I didn't say the US military should be passive. They should actively make themselves into the victim, because that is who the peoples hearts feel for. Right now, the Muslim world is seen (and how it appears is all that matters) as the victim of US aggression, and people all over the world feel for them. Thus the US becomes the enemy, loses political capital. Osama wins.

Does it make more sense now? It has nothing to do with who in hindsight was bad or good, it has to do with the feelings of the world toward who is the aggressor. We want to be seen as the victims of 9/11, not an imperialist power dominating other nations. If we do this successfully, we can't lose. But if we don't we can't win, as there is always people lining up to fight an imperialist power, but no one lines up to fight the victim.

[Redleg]

Is this a joke? United States-Indians? You mean Native Americans? I meant the British violent response the Indians in India...

Are you attempting to deny that the British were prone to violent responses to Native Americans during its colonization efforts?



Did you go to school?


Ah an ad hominem arguement.....



And when was what Gandhi did passive? And once Gandhi died, did things get better when people were violent? Doesn't look like it to me.


Gandhi was not violent - which would equate to a passive method of bringing about social change. Much like Martin Luther King Jr. was passive in bringing about social change in the United States.

Careful about making ad hominem arguments since in this instance you left yourself open for the exact same comment that you made above.



Gandhi was very active, and accomplished many things.


Yes indeed - Gandhi accomplished many things - but his model was from within. The problem with the War on Terror is the United States does not have a model ally that can cause social change from within. Saudi Arabia has been playing both sides for years, Pakistan is not much better, and then Iran has been calling the United States the great Satan for many years. THe voice of moderation is squelched in many muslim countries by the extremists.



The Jews were passive when they lined up to go to death. They had no power, they made no choice. Gandhi had full power when he organized strikes, he made the choice to be beaten without fighting back. The Jews did not, they were beaten without consent. Gandhi did it for a reason, so he could say, "they cannot defeat my arguement, so they will be violent towards me" and he looked like the victim to people.

The method utilized by Gandhi is considered passive - a form of civil disobence where he was willing to accept the outcome of his peaceful actions - without resorting to violence.



In fact this Jewish point is excellent, Germany made the Jews look like the aggressor, and it was as if the Germans were the victims to Jews. So it justified killing them.

You will have to explain this one in more detail. It contradicts much of what I have studied concerning the blaming of the Jews for Germany's defeat and subsquent depression after WW1. Placing blame on a group is far from being made out to be the aggressor toward open warfare in the society.



I didn't say the US military should be passive. They should actively make themselves into the victim, because that is who the peoples hearts feel for. Right now, the Muslim world is seen (and how it appears is all that matters) as the victim of US aggression, and people all over the world feel for them. Thus the US becomes the enemy, loses political capital. Osama wins.


When militaries become victims - they also become active targets. Military personal armed with weapons don't make for a willing victim scenerio. I don't believe the British success in Northern Ireland was based on the military allowing themselves to become victims - but a much better model then what the United States is currently doing, and what you are proposing here.



Does it make more sense now?


No



It has nothing to do with who in hindsight was bad or good, it has to do with the feelings of the world toward who is the aggressor. We want to be seen as the victims of 9/11, not an imperialist power dominating other nations. If we do this successfully, we can't lose. But if we don't we can't win, as there is always people lining up to fight an imperialist power, but no one lines up to fight the victim.

Ah but in the instance of Afganstan the United States is not the aggressor, one can argue that the United States is the aggressor with Iraq, one must be able to explain away the invasion of Kuwait and the consequences of Iraq's defeat from that invasion.

[fallen851]

Redleg, you're putting way to much stock in vocabularly, and missing the overall point.

Yes the British were violent in their response to Native Americans, but they were not violent in their response to Indians in America, since there was not Indians in America.

First, disregard your definition of passive, it is incorrect. A passive person is not someone who is not violent, it is someone who does nothing, and does not wield power. Gandhi did many things, and he wielded power. Thus he can be considered active. Martin Luther King was also quite active, active change does not mean violent change. I don't know what war lover sold you that idea.

Or you can throw out the idea of passive and active in the first place, and just say "people do stuff", and it will achieve the same effect. By labeling active and passive as you have, you're putting down "passives" who do nothing because in our society sterotypically people are not supposed to be passive.

You understand the Germany point, you're just failing to see the overall point. Think simply. Germany made the Jews look like the bad guys (saying they were what caused Germany to lose WWI), and made themselves look like the victims (victims of Jewish treachery). So few Germans stood up for the Jews when they were murdered. Whether or not this was right or wrong morally, doesn't matter, it happened. Blamed was placed that group suffered.

The majority of people around the world see the US as the bad guys, invading nations. So that means the people they invade are the victims (ie Iraqi and Afghanistan's people). So few people around the world will stand up for the United States, and the United States loses political capital. Whether or not this was right or wrong morally, doesn't matter, it happened. Blame was placed and that group suffered.


"Ah but in the instance of Afganstan the United States is not the aggressor"

The United States being the aggressor or not in your opinion or my opinion has nothing to do with anything. What matters is world opinion, and world opinion (based upon polls) thinks the United States is the aggressor. Thus the US loses political capital.

It doesn't matter if one can explain the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan to people using 9/11. No one cares. No one cares about facts.

This is about the way the US is seen worldwide emotionally. If you haven't noticed, people vote with their "hearts and minds". My soon to be mother in law voted for Bush because he has "good values". That speaks not to facts, because what is valued is an opinionated question.

We need to speak to peoples hearts, and emotionally, and say "look, we aren't trying to dominate, we are victims, those people are the aggressor". Osama Bin Laden has convinced people for a variety of reason that the US is the aggressor, and that he is a victim. While I believe some of his arguements are strong, it has nothing to do with anything. No one cares what I alone think, just like they don't care what you think. What matters is what the masses think. And all they see is the most powerful nation on earth using violence as means to an end. And that end is peace. And most people don't think violence brings out peace. So the US has to use peace, while Osama uses violence, for people see it the other way around.

But Osama is smart, he offered peace to the US awhile ago, the US declined. So based on that very simple statement (and only that statement!), who wants war? Clearly the US and not Osama. That is what the average person on the Arab street sees. Now understand this, and use it. You guys need to look at Iraqi from this realistic point of view. If you ignore what I just said, your ignoring facts.

Does this make sense now?

[King Henry V]

To gain perspective on your opposition, I would like input on the following questions.


1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?

1a - If so, how and in what measure?

1b - Overarching constraints?


2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?

2a - If so, how and in what measure?

2b - Overarching constraints?


I will now await your thoughts and refrain from replying (my goal is information not argument) for 2 days or 50 responses.
Very few guerillas movements have been defeated by a regular military force. In defensive terms, a guerilla movement is very near invincible, and it is only when it goes on the offensive that it can be heavily beaten.
Guerilla wars have ended either with the victory of the guerillas, a negotiated settlement or their surrender after being reduced to a limited geographic area. The first is nigh on impossible, as America is a gazillion times more powerful than terrorists could ever be. The second is also unlikely, since America refuses to deal with terrorists. As the "war on terror" covers a huge geographic scope with terrorists not limited to one region, I do not think the third is an option.
However, if we are talking about a limited area such as Iraq, some wars have been won against guerrillas, though at a very high cost in terms of lives and notably political capital. To do so one would have to be a ruthless and brutal bugger, killing one everyone even suspected of helping the rebels. Not an avenue I think America would like to take.
In other words, no, I don't think America can win in Iraq and the situation is deteriorating fairly rapidly.

[Scurvy]

The majority of people around the world see the US as the bad guys, invading nations. So that means the people they invade are the victims (ie Iraqi and Afghanistan's people). So few people around the world will stand up for the United States, and the United States loses political capital. Whether or not this was right or wrong morally, doesn't matter, it happened. Blame was placed and that group suffered.


"Ah but in the instance of Afganstan the United States is not the aggressor"

The United States being the aggressor or not in your opinion or my opinion has nothing to do with anything. What matters is world opinion, and world opinion (based upon polls) thinks the United States is the aggressor. Thus the US loses political capital.

It doesn't matter if one can explain the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan to people using 9/11. No one cares. No one cares about facts.

This is about the way the US is seen worldwide emotionally. If you haven't noticed, people vote with their "hearts and minds". My soon to be mother in law voted for Bush because he has "good values". That speaks not to facts, because what is valued is an opinionated question.






I like the way this is explained :2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Redleg, I would argue that non-violence is not at all passive, indeed it is a philosophy entirely of action. What it does not allow is violent action, either to initiate action or in response. However, many non-violent resisters are willing to suffer violence perpetrated upon them.

The Mahatma once said in response to the question - what will you do if they ignore you?: 'We will not allow them to ignore us. The purpose of a civil resister is to provoke response.'

Non-violent resistance is the very antithesis of passivity.

:bow:

[sharrukin]

The United States should aspire to victimhood, because that way everyone will feel sorry for them? And what exactly is cultivating that form of contempt, which is called pity, going to do for them? Painting yourself as the victim is a losers game. It's a dead end. Ask the Palestinians. It gets you nothing and nowhere.


Is this a joke? United States-Indians? You mean Native Americans? I meant the British violent response the Indians in India...



Yes the British were violent in their response to Native Americans, but they were not violent in their response to Indians in America, since there was not Indians in America.

I don't know what PC academy you graduated from but it is rather disconnected from reality. We have a reservation in our town, and I grew up going to school with Indians every day of my life. They called themselves Indians, and that is good enough for me. In any case, they seem to be somewhat confused about who they are, so perhaps you should go down and explain it all to them!

http://www.indians.org/



The Jews were passive when they lined up to go to death. They had no power, they made no choice. Gandhi had full power when he organized strikes, he made the choice to be beaten without fighting back. The Jews did not, they were beaten without consent. Gandhi did it for a reason, so he could say, "they cannot defeat my arguement, so they will be violent towards me" and he looked like the victim to people.

What do you think would have happened if it had been the Nazi's in charge of India? Ghandi had power because the British were NOT willing to do what the Nazi's WERE willing to do.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King were dealing with civilized nations and civilized leaders. If it had been a totalitarian nation such as the Nazi's, or the Communists, they would not have gotten away with it.



In fact this Jewish point is excellent, Germany made the Jews look like the aggressor, and it was as if the Germans were the victims to Jews. So it justified killing them.

The Jews have been seen as victims for centuries and that didn't do a damn thing to save them. Not during the holocaust, and not during the many pogroms through the ages.



I didn't say the US military should be passive. They should actively make themselves into the victim, because that is who the peoples hearts feel for. Right now, the Muslim world is seen (and how it appears is all that matters) as the victim of US aggression, and people all over the world feel for them. Thus the US becomes the enemy, loses political capital. Osama wins.

This seems like an outgrowth of the victimology craze. How it appears IS NOT all that matters. You seem to have this notion that feelings, pity, and world opinion have some great meaning. What did world opinion do for the victims in Rwanda? World opinion is on the side of the Palestinians and has been for decades, and they are still living like refugee's.



Does it make more sense now? It has nothing to do with who in hindsight was bad or good, it has to do with the feelings of the world toward who is the aggressor. We want to be seen as the victims of 9/11, not an imperialist power dominating other nations. If we do this successfully, we can't lose. But if we don't we can't win, as there is always people lining up to fight an imperialist power, but no one lines up to fight the victim.

No, it doesn't make any sense now, either!

I don't know of a lot of nations lining up to take on the United States. Some of them talk a storm, but they are short on action. Qaddafi's Line of Death is a good example. I do know that victims around the world have no shortage of aggressors.

The mentality we are talking about is best expressed in the words of one of these aggressors. When an advisor warned him against conflict with the Catholic Church, Josef Stalin contemptuously demanded, “How many divisions does the pope have? He didn't care about world opinion and all the sympathy in the world didn't help any of his victims!

[Brenus]

Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?Yes, military force can be used against terrorist but IF supported by intelligence and other politics. Petrus spoke about the anti-guerrilla war against Algerian rebellion. Most of what he said is true, even if I wouldn’t put so-much emphasis on the torture aspect.
The French innovations like the use of helicopters (concept fully exploited in Vietnam few years late by the US with the US efficiency), the construction of the line on the Tunisian Border, the use of new technology, all that linked with a deep knowledge of the populations and a large number of local allies give the French army the upper hand.
The main problem is the counter-part of the military aspect, vaccination, school, access to better jobs, all this came too late and couldn’t win against the resentment of 150 years of colonisation and injustice. The French claimed the Algeria was French but the natives were denied of the French own system of value. The French lost because the denied and refused their own values.

1a - If so, how and in what measure?
I have answered partially to this. You can apply force until you don’t breach your own standards. The military aspect of the US and allies, the methods used just played in the insurgents hands, and the arrogance of Bremer and consorts hurt the Iraqis pride.
The use of force should and would have been proportionate to the thread it wouldn’t be a problem. But the US disappointment of been attack by people they came to liberate, the lack of understanding of what was happening, and the different scandals dug the gap between USA and Iraqis…
Few terrorists succeeded to oblige the US to use Saddam methods (or at let something which looked like) so the US lost the moral front. Too much helicopters, too much artillery, too much Abrahams…

1b - Overarching constraints?
Avoid all what can be used by the opponent’s propaganda. Use search and destroy teams acting on intelligence.

2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?Well, it depends what you want to achieve. The French Revolution succeeded against major rebellions in using very harsh methods but it was others times. You can’t anymore destroy a village to liberate it.

2a - If so, how and in what measure?
When you destroy a village, you built immediately school, markets, and hospital. Develop a kind of immediate reaction to cure the “lateral” damage to show to the population that what you did was because the enemy took them as shield, cowardly hiding behind them.

2b - Overarching constraints?
Timing… How much time do you have?

[Kanamori]

1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?

1a - If so, how and in what measure?

1b - Overarching constraints?

Yes. Intelligence. Stepping up intelligence efforts has seemed to work very well, so far. Trouncing around in other countries w/o their permission may not be such a great idea...


2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?

2a - If so, how and in what measure?

2b - Overarching constraints?

eeee... it's never going to be very pretty. I would say that it varies greatly depending on the organisation of the insurgents, the number of soldiers they have, and how popular they are. Propoganda against them would be a central strategy, as well as intelligence, and specially trained troops. As far as constraints go, avoid fights when large numbers of civilians are at risk, and generally keep the propoganda to stretching the truth, and not outright lies.:sweatdrop: In some cases with devoted guerillas and popular support, negotiation may be the only acceptable solution.


"If you just sign your name on the declaration there we will be taking our hands off the guns right now. If you could just put your signature there…" (also Irish (someone else)) "We will sign this piece of paper if you'll take you hands away from the guns. Just take… The signature is so close to going on to the thing, if you could just remove…" (other Irish) "I've got my nail on the gun now, that's all I have. The ball is in your court: if you could just take - put that ink into that thing. It's hardly a nanometer away. If you could just ******* take your ******* finger away." (other other Irish) "I'm dripping the ink down there, I'm putting the ink on - it's not actually making any sentences yet but I'm… All right! It's all ******* off. Forget about it." cake or death? (http://www.auntiemomo.com/cakeordeath/circletranscript.html)
:laugh4:

[Redleg]

Redleg, I would argue that non-violence is not at all passive, indeed it is a philosophy entirely of action. What it does not allow is violent action, either to initiate action or in response. However, many non-violent resisters are willing to suffer violence perpetrated upon them.

I did not claim that passive change is a philosophy of non-action. It seems some believe that passive has only one definition. A simple definition from Websters.


Main Entry: passive resistance
Function: noun
: resistance especially to a government or an occupying power characterized mainly by noncooperation


Oh well it seems that some just will always paint themselves into a sterotype regardless. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi's ideas for change dealt with this exactly this concept.



The Mahatma once said in response to the question - what will you do if they ignore you?: 'We will not allow them to ignore us. The purpose of a civil resister is to provoke response.'

Non-violent resistance is the very antithesis of passivity.

:bow:

It is still considered passive resistance. :book: Something regardless of one poster's attempt prior to your post - men such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. I hold in high regard. If more men were like those two gentlemen the world might not be in the shape it is now.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I did not claim that passive change is a philosophy of non-action. It seems some believe that passive has only one definition. A simple definition from Websters.



Oh well it seems that some just will always paint themselves into a sterotype regardless. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi's ideas for change dealt with this exactly this concept.



It is still considered passive resistance. :book: Something regardless of one poster's attempt prior to your post - men such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. I hold in high regard. If more men were like those two gentlemen the world might not be in the shape it is now.

Thanks for clarifying, Red. I see where you're coming from and would agree with you, though the terminology is obviously not one of my choice - but I have come across it before.

:bow:

[InsaneApache]

I can't believe that no-one has picked up on this...


In addition, when discussing a more passive response to Israel's terrorist enemies, it would be more than a little ridiculous, not to mention what happened the last time Jews thought passive behaviour would save their bacon.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Franconicus]

[QUOTE=Seamus Fermanagh] 1 - Can military force be used successfully against a terrorist opponent?
1a - If so, how and in what measure?
1b - Overarching constraints?


2 - Can military force be used successfully against an insurgent/guerilla opponent?
2a - If so, how and in what measure?
2b - Overarching constraints?[QUOTE]
SF, that is the key issue, isn't it?

However, you mix up notions like terrorists, insurgents, guerilla. How do you define them?

Let's start with terrorists. To me (and I do not mind if you do not agree) they are individuals or small groups, that are extremly brutal in their actions, often - but not always - are not very selective regarding their targets and are driven by hate and frustration and aim for the psychological effect more than for the material damage. (we are not talking about state terrorism!)
Terrorists can hardly be fought by military. The army can protect objectives, that is all. The rest is the job of intelligence and police. First of all you have to insure that the psychologic effect does not work, esp. that the terrorist is isolated in the society.
When you think of AQ terror, you must fight the supporters in the Arabian countries and in your home country. Intelligence and propaganda are the right means. Military often does a lot of damage.

Insurgents Insurgents show, that a more or less strong portion of the society has the feeling, that their rights are injured. You can surpress them with military means, however, if the portion of the unsatisfied is too big, the pressure will be high and the problem may increase. Additionally military means, once they escalate, can lead to sympathies of other parts of the society, the problem increases. Conclusion: Yes, you can surpress them, but not solve the problems with military. However, you can gain some time to solve the roots of the problems.
The situation is different, if the portion of unhappy people is very small. Then military can work (or even police). Another special situation is when the unsatisfied people are easily separated from the rest, for example black people in the US or Kurds. Here you can try to solve the problem with military by killing as much as possible and so decreasing the share of unhappy people. This has been tried with some success, however, I wonder if this is acceptable to you.

Guerillias: Guerillas are a mixture of both. It shows that a portion of the population is not happy and is willing to fight, however not strong enough for an open fight. Maybe it comes after a riot that had been put down by military.
Again, military can surpress the guerilla, however not solve the problem.

[fallen851]

The United States should aspire to victimhood, because that way everyone will feel sorry for them? And what exactly is cultivating that form of contempt, which is called pity, going to do for them? Painting yourself as the victim is a losers game. It's a dead end. Ask the Palestinians. It gets you nothing and nowhere.



I don't know of a lot of nations lining up to take on the United States. Some of them talk a storm, but they are short on action. Qaddafi's Line of Death is a good example. I do know that victims around the world have no shortage of aggressors.

The mentality we are talking about is best expressed in the words of one of these aggressors. When an advisor warned him against conflict with the Catholic Church, Josef Stalin contemptuously demanded, “How many divisions does the pope have? He didn't care about world opinion and all the sympathy in the world didn't help any of his victims!

Sorry man, you're never going to understand.

See you think that the the Palestinians are trying to be victims, but they aren't seen that way, people see them as crazy Islamic fools. YOU HAVE TO BECOME THE VICTIM IN OTHER PEOPLES EYE'S, NOT ACTUALLY BE THE VICTIM! Much of world does not see Palestine as the victim.

Lets take the Jews. People saw them as the victim after WWII, so they got a nation out of it, and lots of other good stuff. were they really the victim?

NO ONE CARES.

It happened, it is over, it doesn't matter who is "really" the victim, you just have to seem like it.

You need to correctly view the situation, you are putting your own spin on it. You're saying "well one can argue these guys were victims", but if they aren't seen as it, IT DOESN'T MATTER!

So forget what you think about something. And think about the sterotypes, and say "how does the world perceive this group?"

People see a Palestininas as the aggressor against the western world, that's why they haven't gotten anywhere, because the western world has the money. You need to understand your audience.

Osama's audience is the world, and the US is losing, political support in Europe, Asia and Africa. People are lining up to fight the US because they the US as the aggressor. not nations, because nations don't matter to Osama, because he knows, like Gandhi knew, that if you win over the people, the government crumbles.

And they are lining up in different ways, political opponents across Europe, "terrorists" across Islamic nations. And yes some "nations" are lining up to help the US, like the UK. But you see Tony Blair is leaving soon, ousted, because the people of the UK don't want the war. The largest demonstration in UK history was held to try to stop Tony Blair from going to war. The UK does not want the war. Spain didn't want the war, look what happened to that government. People in the US still see the US as the victim of 9/11, but the world doesn't, they forgot, all they see is US aggression that is disconnected from what happened in 9/11, and they use Bush's changing rhetoric (we're going to Iraq to get rid of WMD's ----> we are in Iraq to free the people) to justify how they see the US. And thats it. It's over, Good Game, more people dislike the US than before, reducing the US power as #1. Osama wins.

I cannot possibly explain all the audiences, the victim-aggressor situation.

You have to use the theory, and apply it.

And if you don't like the theory, question it, say "this is an example of a situation where these people were seen by the majority at the time (look at polls) as the victims, and everyone (even though they knew who the victim and aggressor were) supported the nation that was seen (look at the polls) as the aggressor".

To date there is no situation as described in the example above.

I'm going to remove myself from this thread, because I know too much. All of what I needed to state has been stated, if you're going to fail to understand the theory, I can't help you. Read my first post, and if you have a better way to salvage the US image in the world, PM me.

[sharrukin]

And if you don't like the theory, question it, say "this is an example of a situation where these people were seen by the majority at the time (look at polls) as the victims, and everyone (even though they knew who the victim and aggressor were) supported the nation that was seen (look at the polls) as the aggressor".

To date there is no situation as described in the example above.

You mean like in Rwanda where THE ENTIRE WORLD saw them as victims? Did it help them? You are mixing up platitudes and reality. Many nations in the world are often willing to give “every assistance short of help”.

Righteous indignation, and touching empathy along with a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee.



I'm going to remove myself from this thread, because I know too much. All of what I needed to state has been stated, if you're going to fail to understand the theory, I can't help you. Read my first post, and if you have a better way to salvage the US image in the world, PM me.

Well, it's hard to me so knowledgeable of the world and unable to communicate that to lesser minds, such as myself. I feel your pain!

Image over substance is the job of PR officers and it only goes so far. The worlds superpower trying to look like a 98lb weakling is only going to look ridiculous.

[Redleg]

I'm going to remove myself from this thread, because I know too much. All of what I needed to state has been stated, if you're going to fail to understand the theory, I can't help you. Read my first post, and if you have a better way to salvage the US image in the world, PM me.

Maybe you should look at your theory instead....

[Sirex1]

You win over guerilla and terrorist by destroing thier farms blockading them and waiting untill they get out of the forrest becouse of hunger then you shoot them dead. In a war against guerilla and terrorist you can't use "political correct" warfare.

I'm not saying that this is right, only that you need to do it to win. I don't think i would support such a strategy.

[rory_20_uk]

Moving on to times when terrorists / guerillas are inside cities where the local population doesn't even know they are there. Surround the city and starve them out? I don't think that this would work. London is too important for that method.

fallen851, those Israli "victims" in fact were responsible for a terrorist campaign. American sympathies went a lot further than right / wrong.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Image over substance is the job of PR officers and it only goes so far. The worlds superpower trying to look like a 98lb weakling is only going to look ridiculous.
Nous sommes tous Americains.

How soon people forget.

[sharrukin]

Nous sommes tous Americains.

How soon people forget.

Yes, people do forget, and the goodwill you allude to was soon 'forgotten' as reality intruded. Nobody had any illusions that something terrible was going to happen to those who got in the way of the Americans, following 911.

Very soon afterwards you had nervous liberals cautioning the Americans not to take action. The pointless Iraq war burned up a lot of goodwill throughout the world as it was seen as having next to nothing to do with 911. Be that as it may, it was inevitable that American predominance in the world would rekindle resentment. Rooting for the underdog is entrenched in the modern world and for a brief spell the Americans were seen as just that. Given who they are and the power they wield, it could never be anything lasting.