Beta Test: Models for Winning the War on Terror

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is a Beta test. The models presented below are almost certainly NOT in their final form. They reprsent my current thinking on this paramount issue of concern as informed by a number of the participants in the ongoing dialogue of the Backroom, my and others' threads therein, media accounts, and relevant literature on conflict and terrorism. Further discussion and refinement, as well as an initial "vote," is encouraged.


Semantic-Philosophical Model
A “War on Terror” is impossible since any kind of an armed conflict against an idea is preposterous. Terrorist incidents are, ultimately an outgrowth of cultural and philosophical differences and it is those differences that must be addressed if any lasting change is to be made. By extension, the use of violence – particularly military – to combat terrorism is, in the long run, pointless. Efforts should be re-oriented toward generating a fuller understanding of the cultures and histories involved in order to find means of ameliorating the worst tensions between the numerous parties to this conflict. Enhanced defensive security measures are a useful component while this long-terms strategy is being developed, but sensitivity to the potential for harsh security to worsen/increase tensions should be factored in.

Police Action Model
A “War on Terror” is, essentially, a form of police action/crime prevention. Military force, in such a context, is of limited value in that it carries too high a risk of worsening tensions and improving the appeal of terrorist organizations by discomfiting or harming individuals who are not party to the conflict. Any large-scale military action is therefore likely to generate more problems in the long run than it resolves in the near term. The primary component of such a campaign should be information gathering and intelligence. Efforts should be made to restrict finances for such organizations and use finance as a means of tracing their actions etc. Information thus generated can be used to enhance security based on specific concerns, empower police authorities with the tools to arrest and prosecute individual terrorists and thwart specific terror plots, and where information is precise enough, allow for surgical use of military force on high-value targets that are not situated among innocents etc. Any broader military actions should involve the support of local forces that oppose the terror force in question and should not consist primarily of outside forces that will only be viewed as aggressors in the long run.

Integrated Model
A “War on Terror” involves intelligence gathering, police investigation, and military action in an ongoing combination. Civilian police efforts should focus, primarily, on defensive security measures, while military action should be used both in the form of surgical attacks on high value targets and, where necessary, to remove those regimes that are actively supporting extra-national terrorist efforts. Intelligence gathering, including efforts to restrict/understand terror financing, should empower both components of this effort. Regime change and nation-building are, inevitably, a component of this effort, but heavy emphasis should be made on allowing the “locals” to develop a government that is both representative of their own culture and positioned as an opponent of extra-national terrorism. Only by changing the institutions and basic framework of those regions that actively support such terrorism can lasting change be effected.

Military Model
A “War on Terror” involves intelligence gathering, but is primarily a military conflict and should be prosecuted as such. Terrorist threats should be identified, targeted, and eliminated. This removal will occur, whenever possible, with the aid and assistance of local polities wherein these terror groups attempt to base themselves. Where support for terrorists is integral to the policies of a state, that state will have to be forced to alter its stance – through military action if necessary. Intelligence gathering, including financial evaluation, is a primary component in providing accurate targeting and threat estimation. Civilian authorities should be tasked with enhancing defensive security measures.

Draconian Model
A “War on Terror” is essentially pointless in that its objective is too nebulous. Those nations supporting terror efforts on an ongoing basis are well known to the world community. These regimes should be targeted for obliteration using whatever tool is most effective. Where necessary the states in question should be occupied and their resources used to defray the costs of the conflict. Terrorist organizations should be attacked and eliminated after the regimes that support them have been removed and their infrastructure thus weakened. Any incipient insurgency efforts should be dealt with ruthlessly so as to suppress any such efforts in the future.

Religious Model
A “War on Terror” is essentially a religious conflict. As such, morale is informed by faith and the power of that faith is central to success in the conflict. The West should return to its Judeo-Christian roots, renew its own faith and empower itself to face the followers of the prophet. In effecting that conflict, another model’s “physical” strategy will be employed, but this model views the power of belief and adherence to higher truth as the essential tool of empowerment for success.

[Divinus Arma]

Good ideas, but teh trhead fails to address what Terrorism really is. In fact, the word "terrorism" itself is obsolete and poorly descriptive.

We are actually involved in a struggle against Religious Fascism. What marks this conflict as unique is the strategy employed by our enemy. Fully aware of our conventional military superiority, the enemy has begun demonstrating the emerging priniciples of 4th Generation Warfare. 4GW, as we have discussed before, involves political, economic, technological, and military attacks using a spectrum of deception aggression tactics and the target-state infrastructure as a weapon.

It is indeed a full-scale war, but one that must be fought back at every level. Military alone will not win it. HOWEVER, and this is a key point, military superiority is the foundation for victory. After all- economic, political, economic, or technological victories cannot alone defeat the enemy. A "side" that sacrifices military victories for other types of victories will be defeated. This has been proven repeatedly in modern conflicts.

Given that, the integrated approach most clsoely resembles a strategy for victory.

[Lemur]

I voted for "Police Action," but that doesn't entirely cover my view. To quote the Israelis, who have some experience in dealing with terrorists, such a war is about three things: "Intelligence, intelligence and intelligence." When dealing with non-state enemies who can emerge and metastize anywhere, you're only as good as your latest mole.

Infiltrate, eliminate. That should be our motto. I'm not really clear on what our current strategy is. DA has declared that Iraq is now a "roach motel" meant to attract jihadis, but that's a questionable proposition.

Oh, and we need to finish up our business in Iraq, which is going to mean far more troops and a far bigger commitment. We need to escape with honor from that horrible hole.

[Scurvy]

Semantic was the wrong i most broadly agree with, although its very hard to find a definition to cover all eventualities :2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I opt for the prosimian model.

[yesdachi]

I am going for a combination of the Police Action and Integrated Models.
A “police” force (possibly the Iraq military in a warm-up for the real task of protecting the country) to occupy the secured areas and ensure safety and order while an integrated intelligence and military force ruts out and destroys the terrorists while preparing the newly liberated areas for the “police” occupation.

More boots on the ground is going to be critical but they need to be Iraq boots that the Iraq people are seeing. The coalition forces need to be the ones doing the military stuff and the behind the scenes stuff. The US should look like the big liberators that come in with a giant boot and smash the terrorists, stay as long as needed to stabilize the area then hand control over to the Iraq “police”. I think the Iraq people need to feel like they are taking care of themselves and we need to set a pattern of identify/destroy/stabilize then move on. They need to know we won’t be there forever if they can take care of themselves, and if that means the ratio between police and civilians is high for a while then so be it.

There should also be immediate rewards for areas that are liberated, I don’t know what but I wouldn’t discredit a giant independence type party to celebrate their freedom from terror or some other such PR type thing. An important figure congratulating xyz city on their new democratic freedom with an underlying high price of freedom and how they should protect it with zeal. The people need to be happy and excited about what they have, so happy with it that they are willing to fight insurgents/terrorists to keep it.

[Ironside]

On the current WoT I would say mostly Integrated Model due to the actual troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. On more general level I would say Police Action Model and for preventing terrorism from actually happening the Semantic-Philosophical Model is best. As you can see, the best counter-meassure is highly situational.

But as Lemur mentioned, intel, intel, intel is the key to victory, even more than usual.

[rory_20_uk]

Although eliminating kills todays threats, it has a nasty habit of creating more threats tomorrow. You can't kill everyone.

G-cube, I hope that you're going to start that proposal on the Christian terrorists that caome from the USA. Good luck in tearing your own country to pieces to... erm... save your country... :inquisitive:

Generally defensive actions that save the populace which will rely on intelligence.

Before the recent troubles, even Iran was having troubles with the populace demanding more freedom - without the west doing a thing. Add same sabre rattling to the equation, and the populace are now behind haing nuclear weapons.

~:smoking:

[Navaros]

I voted "Gah Other" because in my view there is no model that can win the "War on Terror" other than leave the Muslims alone.

Stop instigating Muslims and they will stop attacking the nations that instigate them.

Short of that or killing/imprisoning every Koran-believing Muslim who exists, the war will continue forever.

[rory_20_uk]

It is extremely important to draw a distinction between citizens of the USA, and citizens in a country we're conducting hostilities against. For American Citizens, every lawful care in the world should be taken to ensure that due process, access to a good lawyer, and all that good stuff is followed.

For enemy combatants, do whatever the hell is necesarry to them.

And by "enemy combatants" you refer to everyone in the same village? :no:

What about a town with Illegal immigrants in it? Round up all of them and kill them because of a terrorist in the town?

I can't really adequately voice my utter distain of that comment without a high chance of bieng repremanded.

There should be no distinctions at all between the denizens of your country and those of another.

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

More boots on the ground is going to be critical but they need to be Iraq boots that the Iraq people are seeing.
Hear hear! I could swear that some of the people now saying that we need more US troops have said previously in other threads that it's the US soldiers that are causing the violence.... :book:

Regardless, I don't see where more US troops would help make Iraq stable and independent. They need their own national army to be bigger, better trained, and more reliable if the Iraqi democracy is to succeed.

I voted for integrated- it's the only option that makes sense.

[Ice]

Short of that or killing/imprisoning every Koran-believing Muslim who exists, the war will continue forever.

Or just the radical ones. My roommate is a muslim and he would not need to be "killed/imprisoned".

I vote integrated.

[Tribesman]

Well GC if you make it past the mental assesment when you join up I look forward to seeing you in the news .:no:

[Tribesman]

GC , you are advocating a policy , a rather extreme and absurd policy .
You are aiming at putting yourself in a position where you may be implementing (on a small scale) "policies" in the WOT .
There are a few cases recently where people in that position who saw nothing wrong with the policy you advocate have ended up in the news as disgraces to their uniform and country .
That is why I am being so harsh about what you wrote .
If you do not understand that then read again what you wrote , and spot the war crimes that you say are OK to do because ....well ...because they are foriegners .

[Ironside]

Hear hear! I could swear that some of the people now saying that we need more US troops have said previously in other threads that it's the US soldiers that are causing the violence.... :book:


Having troops on the ground gives rise to several factors, like suppression factor, safety factor, annoyance factor and hatred factor.

Without enough troops on the ground, you'll not give enough on the suppresion factor and safety factor, making the population more sensitive to the annoyence factor and hatred factor and at the same time increasing those factors.

So without enough troops to secure the area, the question will come: What the hell are those troops doing there?

Although with the civil war looming in the shadows, only the suppression factor becomes truly important.

[macsen rufus]

G-cube -- you're advocating the policy that allowed the Nazis to win in occupied France.... oh, they didn't win though, did they?

And generally I voted for the Police Action model, although "Integrated" had its appeal I cannot endorse any "regime change" element. Another country is another country, and we shouldn't be ****ing with other people's system of govt. If it's that bad, it WILL fall. It might take time, it might be messy, but viable, democratic institutions do not arise Athena-like, fully formed from chaos. They take time, and most importantly they have to be home grown.

Example: imagine a country where women cannot vote, have limited property rights, are expected to stay in the home rather than work, are not allowed to drive, where the vast majority of the population follow the established state religion and attend its religious gatherings every week, without state healthcare or education, where homosexuality is illegal, and where most women over the age of thirty are shrouded entirely in black from head to toe. Sound familiar? Yes -- that was Britain at the turn of the twentieth century. We didn't get where we are today by being bombed senseless by America! Why the hell should we expect Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia (oops, sorry, they're our friends aren't they???), North Korea etc to develop if they're constantly being bombed "back to the stone age"?

[Lemur]

I could swear that some of the people now saying that we need more US troops have said previously in other threads that it's the US soldiers that are causing the violence.... :book:
If you can quote 'em, please do so. In the meantime, I don't think it's wise for anyone who toes the Republican party line to make accusations of inconsistency, especially given how often the rationale for the Iraq war has changed. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds (I'll give you a balloon if you know who said that), but it hasn't been a problem for the U.S.A. in this instance.

Plenty of people who initially opposed the Iraq adventure have come to the view that more troops are needed if we're to get this thing done. I don't see anything terribly confused or incoherent in that position.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Was your quote from Mark Twain? (Not googling it, so I'm not sure)...

[Xiahou]

If you can quote 'em, please do so. In the meantime, I don't think it's wise for anyone who toes the Republican party line to make accusations of inconsistency, especially given how often the rationale for the Iraq war has changed. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds (I'll give you a balloon if you know who said that), but it hasn't been a problem for the U.S.A. in this instance.Someone piss in your coffee today? I'd be happy to look up the quotes, but since the backroom is unsearchable Im not really willing to put in the hundreds of man hours necessary to re-read every post for the last several years. Good job at catching me being a Republican shill though- nope, I never disagree with them...


Having troops on the ground gives rise to several factors, like suppression factor, safety factor, annoyance factor and hatred factor.

Without enough troops on the ground, you'll not give enough on the suppresion factor and safety factor, making the population more sensitive to the annoyence factor and hatred factor and at the same time increasing those factors.

So without enough troops to secure the area, the question will come: What the hell are those troops doing there?

Although with the civil war looming in the shadows, only the suppression factor becomes truly important.Oh Iraq needs more troops to be sure- but they should be Iraqi troops. American soldiers should be doing what they do best- winning battles. We need to have more Iraqi troops doing the patrols backed up by American troops and command & control support.

Doubling or tripling (or whatever the fashionable figure is now) the numbers of American forces would only serve to increase American casualties in the long term. Assume we did so- where would it leave us? You'd still have an Iraq incapable of defending or policing itself without American support... how is that achieving our objectives? What we need to look at is how to best train and equip reliable Iraqi forces under the control of the central government.

Personally, I think we'd be in alot better shape now had Bremer not completely disbanded the previous Iraqi army... but that's in the past- we now need to focus on building a coherent, effective force.

[Tribesman]

Quite frankly the entire idea of "War Crimes" is ridiculous.
Really ? that isn't what your illustrious leader said on the eve of the war is it .



What organization decides the fate of war criminals? Oh, right, the UN.
Weeeeeelllllllll, there are lots of organisations , your own military just happens to be one of them , or didn't your recruiter tell you that .


An organization known for its inefficiency, whose member nations are msotly dictatorships responsible for minor or major "war crimes" in their own regard.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: yeeeeeeeesssss most nations are dictatorships:dizzy2:


Only an idiot goes over to Iraq and starts killing everyone he sees
So surely it follows that only an idiot advocates killing everyone then . Or when you say destroy everything you mean destroy everything apart from the people , because they are people even if they ain't American . Though you say that if they ain't American they don't deserve consideration
.

I'd appreciate it if you'd cut the personal crap now, and focus on the meats and merits of the argument at hand.
There is no merit in the meat you are serving up . None whatsoever .

It is personal only in that it relates to what you have personaly written .

[Ironside]

Oh Iraq needs more troops to be sure- but they should be Iraqi troops. American soldiers should be doing what they do best- winning battles. We need to have more Iraqi troops doing the patrols backed up by American troops and command & control support.

True, but more importantly you'll need loyal troops, something that haven't been that common among the Iraqi troops trained this far.


Doubling or tripling (or whatever the fashionable figure is now) the numbers of American forces would only serve to increase American casualties in the long term. Assume we did so- where would it leave us? You'd still have an Iraq incapable of defending or policing itself without American support... how is that achieving our objectives? What we need to look at is how to best train and equip reliable Iraqi forces under the control of the central government.

The point of increasing the troop numbers (although it should've been done for 3 years ago or something like that) is to secure larger parts of the country and to reduce the amount of attacks. This will give time to rebuild and to screen the Iraqi troops. Although the Iraqi troops will then be fewer, fewer troops will be needed as the job needed to be done is less. What's also very important is that if successful, I'll break the feeling of it being slowing going into a loss.

Notice that I'm not sure if increasing troop numbers will succeed, but currently it's the best course of action to achive victory IMO. Any suggestions yourself?


Personally, I think we'd be in alot better shape now had Bremer not completely disbanded the previous Iraqi army... but that's in the past- we now need to focus on building a coherent, effective force.

There's a whole bunch of screw-ups in the beginning, that still cost you and will continue to cost you.

[King Ragnar]

Get the hell out of their countries, if attacks continue get every muslim out of the western culture ( even tho most likley impossible we an still dream) and deport them all back to the middle east to live in their way of ife that is better to ours. Everyones a winner.

[Ice]

Get the hell out of their countries, if attacks continue get every muslim out of the western culture ( even tho most likley impossible we an still dream) and deport them all back to the middle east to live in their way of ife that is better to ours. Everyones a winner.

:wall:

:charge: ~:dizzy:

Great plan. Let's here some other great ones!

[KafirChobee]

Gah! expain below.

The military aspect (the Allies) of more boots, to secure Iraq has long passed. That was Rummy's initial failure - sending 120,000 rather than the 350,000 needed in the Pentagon plan, and that caused our present quagmire. Pull our troops back to safe areas and let the Iraqis' have at it. I read this week in USN&WR that 60% of Iraqis now view the killing of a US soldier as OK by the insurgents (made up mostly of former Iraqi troops) - only 15% say the same about fellow Iraqis be killed by them. The allies cannot win the peace there - only the Iraqis can.

It is no longer a choice to stay the course, or cut and run. But, placing our troops in untentable positions simply makes them fish in a barrell.

We cannot win by proclaiming we will stay 'til the end. We must let the Iraqis find the end for themselves.

As for the WoT, the arguement that by fighting them there we are keeping them off the streets of America has an all to familiar ring to it. It is the same policy we upheld during the Vietnam conflict. Also, coming soon to a propaganda agenda near you - the new improved dominoes theory.

As noted by others, to defeat a terrorist cell or insurgent body one must be able to attain intelligence about their methods, their plans, their infrastructure, their organizational chart (s), and then determine the most effective means to neutralize them. Screaming at the moon, tossing meaningless threats and promising retalliation has no affect when you are fighting an enemy as illusive those we now encounter - and those we soon will.
It is now a matter of fact that there are 4 attacks an hour in Iraq. That Alquada copycat groups are growing at a rate 10 (minimum) times our invasion of Iraq. The Taliban is increasing its numbers daily, and by some estimates are as large as before the invasion of Afghanistan.

The only way to defeat terrorists is by inflitrating their organizations, and keeping their demise a secret. Rather than jumping up and down screaming how wonderful HLS is every time we capture some dimwit that planned on taking down the Brooklyne Bridge with a blow-torch. Real intelligence, a real networking strategy (not this huge NSA net we're presently attempting), a real plan - something that is long term. Something.

At present, we have little going on of real import. Fact is only 4 of the 41 (?) recommendations of the 9/11 Commision have even partially been implimented. The dole ($$$) from HLS is based on partisan politics and not real need - when Iowa and Missouri get more money for security than NYC that is a sure tell. Before anything can really be acheived in the WoT the politics has to be either taken out of it, or become a partisan effort. Today, it is purely in the lap of the GOP - and that my friends is both dangerous (as it would be were it Democrats) and unwise.

Learning the geo-political-cultural aspects of an area is needed before a conflict. After hostilities have begun it almost becomes irrelevant, one is then in a catch up mode to win the hearts and minds. It is way to late to matter to the affected populace whether you now understand them, all they see is that you are still killing them.

Four incidents an hour - unimaginable. Maybe that sign behind Bush on the Aircraft Carrier should have read "Mission Impoosible", rather than Accomplshed.

[King Ragnar]

:wall:

:charge: ~:dizzy:

Great plan. Let's here some other great ones!


Shoot them all?

Lynch them?

Nuke Them?
:2thumbsup:

[Furious Mental]

Islamic terrorism is simply about money. The ideological base for Islamic terrorism comes from fundamentalist religious education. The money for that education comes from rich governments and individuals in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, shown most recently by their bankrolling of the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia. When or if these people and institutions run out of money there will probably still be a few crazies around but they won't be nearly as prolific.