A rant on Terrorism and the United States

[Redleg]

Well someone has caused me to want to vent - especially when some states that peacekeepers always cut and run.

Well here goes - no hard dates will be included in this rant - so feel free to correct hard dates if one wishes.

Back in the 1980's under Reagan to events happened the exact timing I don't exactly remember other then the fact that both happen. Sometime in the very early 80's the Marines were part of the international peacekeeping force that was put in place to help broker the peace between the multiple warring fractions in Leabon. Well it seems that a group founded by a known nations with ties in supporting terrorism, decided it would be just peachy to bring down the Marine Barracks and so they did. Well instead of sticking to the mission what did the United States do - its not hard to guess, since we did it own our own - we pulled out of the visible peacekeeping force and went back to our ships. Score one for the terrorist lesson they learned if you bloodly our nose good enough we will most likely bomb you back but in the end we will leave.

Then another nation that was a known terrorist sponsering nation made a mistake of attempting the same type of thing. Well instead of peacefully accepting the terroritst act the President worked out an Airstrike on the leader's palace and a few other known haunts of that individaul. End result of this tactic is that when it sends a message that if your going to play with the big boys - you just might find out in the end that you can not hang. Score one for the United States.

Then over the next few years the United States government started to play some international politics and pressure tactics. A not so nice guy was attempting to bring down the state that is a known terrorist sponsor and is a nation that likes to villinify the United States as the Great Satan, calling for Allah to bring his wrath upon our heads and destroy the United States and all its evil people. So the government decided to help the enemy of our enemy because it would hurt our enemy. Well at the same time another of our enemies had decided to make a power grap at another nation. This nation happen to sit in a stragitic part of the world for the invading nation and instead of getting into a hot war with the invader the United States supported the insugrent fight against the invader. End result is that with questionable tactics - the United States did the right thing in assisting the people in their resistance of invasion. However each actions ethics cancelled out the good. End result is a negative ethical score toward the United States.


Then here comes the fun - The enemy of our enemy decided to invade our friend. So we repeled his invasion and gave him conditions for peace. In this process the United Nations all agreed that it was the right course of actions and meet the goals of restoring justice to the international community. But low and beyond a dictator who got trashed by a smaller and better equiped force has to face a rebellion at home. One that was encouraged by the west. So what happens when the oppressed people revolt against a despot, thinking that the West would support thier rebellion because of the violations of the cease fire that would naturally occur. Well the West lost its will, and allowed the despot to committ crimes against his own people. End result is that those facing tryanny from their own leaders saw that they could not count on the promises of the west to support their cause - especially the United States and its fickle population.

The path to hell has been created by good intentions that were not followed up on. So to make ammends the West (primarily the United States and the United Kingdom) attempts to prevent the enemy of our enemy who is now our enemy from using his aircraft on his own population by a no fly zone.

Moving on, while this is going on the World community decided to help a strif worn nation on the brink of destruction from stravation and famine and war. Well once again in greatest hollywood fashion the Marines are given an opporunity to seize the beaches, a great photo op but absolutely no tactical significance accomplished. Well it seems that an United States General takes it upon himself to order the seizure of someone who was seen as a threat to the peace, without coordinating with other nations within the Peacekeeping forces - the operation turns into a nightmare. Many brave men are sited for their actions in combat helping each other and defending the hurt and wounded. Much blood is shed on both sides - a whole lot more on the opposing side then for the United States. End result of the operation is that the peacekeeping mission is seen as a failure and the United States pulls out.

Score one to the bad guy - lesson learned give the United States a bloodly nose and we will leave.

Then comes the tit for tat cruise missle exchanges for terrorism with the upcoming bad guy. No hard effort is made to go in and find the criminals by using international forces and cooperation. Some minor efforts but nothing that really panned out. Why because the United States just thought it was a nusance that effected others primarily or our overseas military facalities. You know the risks of the job......

So you might ask what is the point to this rant - its quite simple folks.

While terrorism is not the fault of the United States the lessons we have provided them has encouraged them to believe that such a method will indeed get them the result that they wish for. If the political will is not there to tell terrorists to stick it where the sun does not shine and spin until they drop - there will be a group of people who believe that violence does indeed bring about the fruitation of their goals - because in the end the West will always cut and run from violence. The political will to face violence with a strong united front no longer exists to see a long term solution. So goes the cycle of humanity.... But what the hell it is always the fault of the individual soldier for cutting and running from a fight - not the nation that sent them there or the international body that thought it was the right thing to do.

If you don't understand the lesson just review

Somilia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, and a host of other successful, somewhat successful, and terrible failures of the peacekeeping operations involving western nations.

[Redleg]

Oh also - you can also blame George W Bush for allowing the fracture of the united front of the west to grow because of his mis-judging of the will of the world to remove Saddam from power. Regardless of how much I believe it was necessary to remove Saddam from power - one can not deny it did indeed fracture the West in its resolve to remove this blight from the scene of humanity.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Interesting post, Redleg. I don't have time to comment fully this morning, but will think it through today.

One quick question though: In this context, what are your views on the United States administration refusing for so long to reign in support of the terrorism of the IRA? Surely many terrorism minded groups saw in this a tacit support for terrorist outrages as long as they fitted the emotions of pressure groups in the US?

[Redleg]

Interesting post, Redleg. I don't have time to comment fully this morning, but will think it through today.

One quick question though: In this context, what are your views on the United States administration refusing for so long to reign in support of the terrorism of the IRA?

A mistake that every administation should be ashamed of having made.

Surely many terrorism minded groups saw in this a tacit support for terrorist outrages as long as they fitted the emotions of pressure groups in the US?

Yep - a point that was not covered in my rant - but I was focusing on the cut and run aspect of some of our foreign troop deployments of the last 25 years.

Lets say that the young man caused a lot of anger to be expressed toward the cut and run politics of past administrations. Other aspects of the ethical dilemia's posed by past administrations and even the current can and would also apply to the above arguement wouldn't you agree.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Redleg: I think that's a very good, objective and uncontroversial summary of the historical perspective. Of course the interesting - but controversial - question is what to change in strategy to get a better future, but it's quite good to take a break in the discussion of that and actually have all sides look at a summary of the facts such as this, to remember what the individual opinions are based on. It's indeed a tricky question.

[Fragony]

You call that a rant? That is a balanced, objective, historically correct essay.

learn from me.

[Redleg]

@Redleg: I think that's a very good, objective and uncontroversial summary of the historical perspective. Of course the interesting - but controversial - question is what to change in strategy to get a better future, but it's quite good to take a break in the discussion of that and actually have all sides look at a summary of the facts such as this, to remember what the individual opinions are based on. It's indeed a tricky question.

The problem as I see it - is that the world community has demonstrated by its actions in (especially the United States) that it will indeed change its methods to meet the goals of the terrorist because of a lack of politicial will to confront and defeat the terrorist. The West has become its own worst enemy in this regards.

Because of the situation on the ground currently the United States can not remove itself from either Afganstan or Iraq. To do so in the face of the current insurgection would futher generate the impression that has been ongoing for several years now.

So the United States is caught in a vicious cycle that it help create by its own actions of cutting and running from situations where terrorist violence was used against its forces.

More troops, more money to quickly fix the broken infrastructure, more policing of the troops to insure they abide by the rules of war, more policing of the corporate contracts to prevent fraud waste and abuse of funds. In other words the United States must make a stand and improve the infrastructure of Iraq, insure the transistion to self government back to the people of Iraq before it attempts to withdraw.

Unfortunately its not a solution that will set well with the American People nor the Iraqi people.

So its a conundrum

[Bartix]

Oh also - you can also blame George W Bush for allowing the fracture of the united front of the west to grow because of his mis-judging of the will of the world to remove Saddam from power. Regardless of how much I believe it was necessary to remove Saddam from power - one can not deny it did indeed fracture the West in its resolve to remove this blight from the scene of humanity.

One can remember also Saddam was offering to leave, few days before operation "Shoot foot of self, world + dog" was effectuated. Accepting this would be one less bloody way of Saddam from power removal. But instead Coalition of Willing perform an other change of formulation of purpose of war.