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

[Geoffrey S]

I like. Very good post, Redleg.

[Pannonian]

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.

Wouldn't it be equally idiotic, if not more so, to do something that's not in our interests simply because it's the opposite of what the terrorist wants? Should we not decide what we need to do, then persevere with it without running from terrorists or running towards them? Marginalise or eliminate them as criminals, but ignore them as a factor.

Take the example of Northern Ireland. Westminster had been unhappy about the Protestant oppression of Catholics even before the IRA took it up as their cause - the British army was initially sent in to protect the Catholics from the Protestants. Then followed decades of conflict, which was eventually resolved because the British government had decided on a strategy of normalising Northern Ireland society, without giving in to or demonising Catholics simply because the IRA took their side.

Beyond strategies to minimise the effects of their violence, the IRA simply had no influence either way on British policies on Northern Ireland, which is to bring its standard of living up to the rest of the UK, and maintain the Union with Britain as long as it was the wish of the majority of the population. Eventually even the IRA bought into this, Sinn Fein vowing to continue the struggle purely through political means. If they should ever manage to persuade the people of Northern Ireland that unification with the Republic is a good thing, they're welcome to do so.

[Redleg]

Wouldn't it be equally idiotic, if not more so, to do something that's not in our interests simply because it's the opposite of what the terrorist wants? Should we not decide what we need to do, then persevere with it without running from terrorists or running towards them? Marginalise or eliminate them as criminals, but ignore them as a factor.

That would explain a valid reason for not going into a country. However when you have committed into a course of action - which does cause a violent reaction against your course of action. Iraq is a prime examble of a bad situation that which ever way the United States goes it will result in future problems.

To pull tail and run away without restoring the infructure of the nation is a worse course of action then attempting to fix what we broke.

Take the example of Northern Ireland. Westminster had been unhappy about the Protestant oppression of Catholics even before the IRA took it up as their cause - the British army was initially sent in to protect the Catholics from the Protestants. Then followed decades of conflict, which was eventually resolved because the British government had decided on a strategy of normalising Northern Ireland society, without giving in to or demonising Catholics simply because the IRA took their side.

Beyond strategies to minimise the effects of their violence, the IRA simply had no influence either way on British policies on Northern Ireland, which is to bring its standard of living up to the rest of the UK, and maintain the Union with Britain as long as it was the wish of the majority of the population. Eventually even the IRA bought into this, Sinn Fein vowing to continue the struggle purely through political means. If they should ever manage to persuade the people of Northern Ireland that unification with the Republic is a good thing, they're welcome to do so.

A valid history lesson - notice though the conditions that you are establishing. A normalising of the Nothern Ireland society. Without the basic infrastructur being rebuilt and the government re-established a normalization of the Iraqi society can not happen. Its a Catch 22 for the United States in that regards. Troops are seen as occupation forces regardless of the intent of the occupation.

[rotorgun]

Good thread Redleg. If only the Bush administration could be a little more objective in explaining their logic to the rest of us, then perhaps more of us would fall into line with their plan. What I can't stand is how they seem to be blatantly using some of these very valid reasons more for economic and political gain. I am all behind the idea of being honorable to your allies and defending the weak and all that. I just cannot believe that it is only about such noble causes. Too much oil profit is at stake for me to fall for such idealism.

Once again, great post!

[A.Saturnus]

Very good post. But it be complete one should mention peacekeeping missions that weren't. Like when an African tribe killed several hundred thousands of another tribe while the West debated about which color peacekeeping vehicles should have.

[Brenus]

“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 individual” and help by the fiasco of the Dictator/Colonel army in Chad and was left only with his mirages. Score earned in cooperation.

Good post. Because you choose the military side, I can’t send the text I prepared about the DARK SIDE of US intervention. Well, next time.

[Redleg]

Good post. Because you choose the military side, I can’t send the text I prepared about the DARK SIDE of US intervention. Well, next time.

It would most likely tie in very well - military intervention even when it is 100% successful in accomplishing its stated goals always leaves the local populace with one of two sets of emotions. Great relief and satification, or one of utter disgust and hate toward what they feel is an occupation force.

A case in point toward that would be Kosovo and Bosina.

Beriut and Somilia (SP) demonstrate the point about the failure of proper, timely, and apporiate military intervention, plus the lack of political resolve to insure that the military intervention is handled.

Liberia would be a case of both types.

Now A.Saturnus brings up an even more valid demonstration of the lack of political will of the west in resolving such issues with his point.

Like when an African tribe killed several hundred thousands of another tribe while the West debated about which color peacekeeping vehicles should have.

These demonstrates even more soundly the main problem with Western Intervention and the lack of a political united front to stop such insanity from ever happening again.

It seem that the world did not truely learn the lessons of WW2. Makes me if wonder more is man always doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?

[Brenus]

Makes me if wonder more is man always doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past?
Ah, that is a debate I had several times when I was working in Humanitarian Help.
I think we improve. Not so much but we do. Now, we know we can’t slaughter with impunity. We know it is bad. And even with mistakes and with political agendas, we intervene to protect, to save lives. Karadic and Mladic are on the run, Milosevic was on trail. Yes, we can complain (and I do, often) about Putine and Chechnya, China and Tibet… But we improve. But as old teachers wrote on my test and home work: “We can do better”.
Do not despair

[rory_20_uk]

We improve? How long ago was it that 500,000 wre slaughtered in Africa whilst we did nothing. Pol Pot killed a greater percentage of the country's population since Ghenghis Khan.

Perhaps we intervene slightly more with news telling us more of what is happening. But with so many areas of the world that nothing is one about I fail to see that we do anything other than those things which benefit the rich countries. Helping the people appears to mainly be a side effect.

[KafirChobee]

Red, for the most part I agree. Though the ambiguity of two wrongs making a right - the invasion of Iraq, and staying to finish the job of setting democracy back 20 years in the region - seems ascew.

Cut and Run, is more a propaganda point than what actually occurred in some of the events mentioned. I have a friend that was at the barracks in Lebanon when the bomb went off killing 241 (think the # is close) Marines and wounding a bunch more. They had no clue as to what their mission was. To keep the peace? What peace? We were not invited, or wanted - so it was a fubar from the getgo and a diplomatic fiascal. We got a bloody nose for sticking it where it didn't belong. As I recall, the only people halfway happy to see us were the Christian elements of the population. I don't view it as a cut and run, as much as a lesson that should have been learned. Unfortunately, we had a President at the time that stated, "History is meaningless unless you are making it", meaning he had no clue about the events that caused the civilwar there and had no idea about past incursions in history by good intentions power brokers.

As concerns, Somalia, sending in 20,000 Marines for humanitarian reasons was a noble thing. Pulling them out, re-editing the mission, and redefining the rules of engagement just prior to Bush41's leaving office - well, that was political. The intent was to embarrass the new Democrat President (worked once .... reference Bay of Pigs), and it worked - it may also have made Clinton a little gun shy. What happened in Mogadishu was a total fubar, a set up. Thing is, with the 20,000 Marines in place - it would not have occurred. Also, we were there as part of a UN force - when the UN decided it was a Civil War, and ergo no longer required their forces (as in lets get the H outta Dodge) - were we to stay there? Send the 20,000 Marines back into a hostile environment we were unwelcome in? It is a very gray area. Our initial actions (Bush41) were correct from a humanitarian point of view (though I am pretty sure he did it just to increase his poll standings - worked with Desert Storm), but from a national interests evaluation - it was a dumb thing to do. Staying would not have solved anything.

Our presence in Iraq has: increased the Taliban's stature and numbers (especially in think-alike terrorists organizations), decreased the growth of democracy in the region by allowing the despots there to solidify their possitions through the forced submission of democratic actions and free media, made us more open to terrorist attacks (because we lost focus on the real enemy, to create a new one), and we are no longer welcome there. Period. When +70% of a newly "liberated" society think we are only there for their oil, and are doing nothing to expand the infrastructure of their country (hard to argue differently, when the power is on about the same as under Saddam). It may have been a great and noble thing to oust Saddam, but we need a real plan to make the country as safe as it was under a despot. Today, we do not - stay the course is not so much a plan as different day, same thing as yesterday, or last month, last year or 4 years ago.

A nation with diplomatic power, and the strongest economy in the world - should only resort to military power as an absolute last resort. Not as a newly founded national doctrine - The Bush Doctrine. That style of leadership exposes a weakness - the inability to resolve differences through anything other than military means. It demonstrates the inflexability of a nation working from a weak diplomatic possition.

Believing that we will encourage those that seek the destruction of our powers by leaving Iraq tomorrow, well - we empowered them by going in there in the first place. By allowing ourselves to be sitting targets for anyone with a grudge against our troops, our President, our way of life or our dominant religion. We gain nothing by remaining there longer than their government allows us to. [and yet we are building 8 permanent bases in Iraq - for their new improved deserting army?]

The "cut and run" theorists always likie to point back at Vietnam as the example of of when the US prestige began weakening. 1954-1975, hardly a cut and run. More like a realization that we entered under the premises of defending democracy and warding of communism of the region - only to discover that we were in fact doing neither.

Today, is the samething, different era. Better to be compassionate with one's own troops and withdraw, than continue an angry rampage thats purpose was lost the second we gave up our moral principles to fight an enemy that we created in the image we imagined them to be.

[yesdachi]

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

Yah, you really need to work on your rants.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

An interesting post, Redleg (and don't tell him, but Kafir's wasn't so bad, overlooking the bias).

I was watching a video on Rwanda in school today, mostly an interview by the Canadian general in charge of a token force from the UN there. His units couldn't do anything because they were undermanned and underarmed. He additionally had strong orders essentially not to intervene.

Is "peacekeeping" worth it? A poignant quote from the movie Hotel Rwanda that is attributed to the same Canadian general went, "We're peacekeepers, not peacemakers." Trying to keep the peace without intervention does not seem to work, because most of the situations seem to involve peace not being there in the first place. But as Red pointed out, peacemaking doesn't always work out so well.

And it will rarely be of national interest (at least to the US) to get involved in peacekeeping/making. It's terribly callous, but there's no loss if people in Africa or the Balkans are killing each other. Our economy continues; no one at home dies. Given the seemingly high risk of failure, why should we risk our blood and treasure in (mis)adventures that few other nations seem willing to contribute seriously to?

[KafirChobee]

Thx, Alex for the off handed sorta compliment ... sorta. ;)

As you are learning, Peacemaking - peacekeeping, do not have the same political signinficance. Wise beyond your ears (and I do ,mean ears) you are. Where as one signifys a keeping of resolve to maintain a status quo, the other defines the attempt by one nation to impose its will on another (e.g. Iraq).

It is one of those insigificant things that most of us simply ignore; by falling back on our patriotism, nationalism, religionosity, or accepting that everything we were ever told by our elders is an absolute. Like in, "honor thy father" ... ergo, what ever he believes i must also.

Anyway, you give me hope that the coming generation to power still has the ability to think .... and hopefully change their minds occassionally. I know, I still change mine.

Thing is, what Red's rant was about: Simply put it is what the Republican party has been about since Nixon lost the war in 'nam (not that it could ever have been won - and Nixon did all he could militarily .. so, I jest). Proving that we (USA) are willing to sacrifice our sons (and daughters) for any reason that a President (Republican, that is) creates as a plausible reason for them (poor, workingclass, middlieclass) to die for.

Ergo, never leave once the mistake has been made that put our troops in harms way ... especially if it concerns oil. Or, tungsten, tin, rubber, etc - as in 'nam. After all, what would Mao do?

[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.

[Geoffrey S]

Where was that quote from, something like "How do we keep the peace where there is none?"

I guess for peacekeeping missions as much as any operation resolve to see it through is a must. Half-baked operations only cause more trouble than they're worth, since it doesn't help at all and puts soldiers in a dangerous position without the necessary means. Srebrenica springs to mind as a situation where a half-hearted mission ended in disaster and disgrace. These kind of things can't and shouldn't be run on a budget but should be all out right from the start; also relevant to Iraq, perhaps.

[Redleg]

Thing is, what Red's rant was about: Simply put it is what the Republican party has been about since Nixon lost the war in 'nam (not that it could ever have been won - and Nixon did all he could militarily .. so, I jest). Proving that we (USA) are willing to sacrifice our sons (and daughters) for any reason that a President (Republican, that is) creates as a plausible reason for them (poor, workingclass, middlieclass) to die for.

Ergo, never leave once the mistake has been made that put our troops in harms way ... especially if it concerns oil. Or, tungsten, tin, rubber, etc - as in 'nam. After all, what would Mao do?

Not at all - you miss the point. But I will leave it to you to figure it out.

A clue it doesn't involve the political parties - it involved the body politic of the United States and that of the Western cultures of the body politic of the world community. The United States is not the only nation guilty of doing what the thread is about - it just happens to be the nation I know the most about.

I wonder how you would explain the Dutch and United Nations failure at Srebrenica? It is a prime examble of exactly what the thread is about involving a nation other then the United States

[Brenus]

“The United States is not the only nation guilty of doing what the thread is about - it just happens to be the nation I know the most about.” Unfortunately you are right. I remember Lebanon, because the French lost (I think) 84 Paratroopers in the Dakar explosion, and France cut and run as well.

“I wonder how you would explain the Dutch and United Nations failure at Srebrenica?” Hum, technically not really an operation against terrorism in Bosnia but an impossible mission in a Civil War. I was there during the first attempt (the one stopped by Morillon) and I can assure you it was really more complex than what the media presented.
But it is a good example about how ruthless men can exploit the weakness of the Democracies.

“it involved the body politic of the United States and that of the Western cultures of the body politic of the world community”. You are right but it is our PRIDE. We can’t do what dictators did and do. We know the time of Arsunibal and the Assyrians is over.
To hesitate to use force and violence is an improvement. And a weakness

[Redleg]

“I wonder how you would explain the Dutch and United Nations failure at Srebrenica?” Hum, technically not really an operation against terrorism in Bosnia but an impossible mission in a Civil War. I was there during the first attempt (the one stopped by Morillon) and I can assure you it was really more complex than what the media presented.

Read some of the after-action reports done by some of the United States Military personal about the issue. Now while I don't remember it all the second part of your response does indeed sum it up well.


But it is a good example about how ruthless men can exploit the weakness of the Democracies.

“it involved the body politic of the United States and that of the Western cultures of the body politic of the world community”. You are right but it is our PRIDE. We can’t do what dictators did and do. We know the time of Arsunibal and the Assyrians is over.
To hesitate to use force and violence is an improvement. And a weakness

Probably the best response regarding the subject yet.