Let's hear some practical ideas.

[Pannonian]

The one thing, it seems to me, that rings true for all of these conflicts, is that
the groups that are dubbed "terrorists" or "insurgents" have all been created by an intense disatisfaction with the policies of their countries or with their general situation. I know it appears weak to negotiate with these groups, but it could be useful to at least try and listen to their demands, and see if some kind of agreement could be reached to get them to stop their attacks. I mean we don't seem to even take them seriously. I know I didn't take Al Queda seriously until the fateful day in September 2001. After I went through my initial reaction of shock and rage, I thought who are these people? What has caused them to hate us so? Are any of their demands reasonable? Am I just being closed minded to any alternative then this endless madness that we have become party too?

Some people argue that it is wrong to negotiate with terrorists, that talking to them only encourages them, and doing what they want you to do encourages them even more. Would this mean that, if terrorists told you to breathe regularly, it would be moral to stop breathing, since to continue to breathe would be doing what the terrorists want?

There are some things that should be done, whether or not terrorists tell you to do them. Do them. There are some things that should not be done, whether or not terrorists tell you to do them. Don't do them. Don't do the opposite of what terrorists tell you to do. Ignore the terrorists, and do whatever should have been done in the first place, had they not existed. If they coincide, then you're happy, they're happy, everyone's happy. If they don't coincide, too bad.

As for taking the "sledgehammer" approach that most nations do, it is inefficient, wasteful, and ineffective. I agree with others that good intelligence, espionage, and above all patience is the correct path to ultimate victory. Like the certain sea snake that lies on the bottom and takes little nibbles of his prey before striking, as mentioned by the character Commodus in the film Gladiator, so must we become. They will make mistakes for they are human. If we are careful, we may just catch them while they are in the process of making one.

Talk to the terrorists. Then do whatever you were going to do anyway, and persuade them this is what they really want, throwing in the odd tidbit here and there to tip the scales. Proven to be effective at ending terrorism in the long run, efficient because talks reduce ongoing terrorism by making them feel listened to, less wasteful because you're not doing anything out of the ordinary, and you don't spend oodles on the military. Not very macho though, hence unattractive to the American people.

[Avicenna]

Isn't it Sri Lanka vs Tamils?

[Tribesman]

Isn't it Sri Lanka vs Tamils?
Thats where it gets complicted
Tamil vs Tamil
Tamil vs India
India vs Sri lanka
India vs India
Atheist vs Religeous
Communist vs Fascist
Communist vs Communist .

Its nearly as complicated as Lebanon

So while I am here ......UK v Provos

Isn't that a practical idea already , just like it was with the original ,old and official .
Its now UK&Eire vs real & continuity +various loyalists .
The solution , reach a stalemate , talk , involve , give concessions .
Marginalise those who will not agree then bring them to a stalemate aswell and start again .
It is a long long process , but the reality is you have a hell of a problem eliminating them all , and the methods neccesary are extremely counterproductive , generally creating more terrorists and supporters rather than reducing them .

[Marshal Murat]

For rebels but NOT RELIGIOUS EXTEMIST, jail people, offer a shorter sentence for information on rebels, detain rebels. Something like Peru.

[Tribesman]

Good example Murat , the changes in policy (and corrupt politicians) , good intelligence (hard to get when everyone is running scared of government death sqauds) , concesions , amnesty and investment all contibute to vast reduction in both the numbers of terrorists , their support base and their activity .
Mexico would also make a good example .
Or even the recent (not latest) events in Palestine . The prisoners document was a great step , unfortunately the extremist elements in the two organisations were not happy with it , they took the action knowing how Israel would react , Israel reacted and hey presto the extremist elements now have massive support in areas they were previously despised in .
Though you cannot really blame Israel itself , its leadership is weak and exceptionaly stupid . Its military is not its military of previous decades , and neither is its enemy .

[rotorgun]

Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this thread due to my schedule, but I found some interesting links about this intruiging subject. As for different definitions of terrorism, the following link is worth a read.

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm

Below is an outstanding essay on the Palestinians taking a nonviolent approach to their conflict with Isreal. I think some of these ideas could be adapted for use against any group that espouses violence as a way of solving conflict. The essay provides some unuique insights into the phsycology of violence and how to resist it.

http://qumsiyeh.org/thomsononnonviolence

This excerpt from John Robb's article I would like to use as a starting point for developing ideas of combatting an asymmetrical enemy. These are the goals of such a foe.

Winning a 4GW conflict
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist -- cohesion. This is done by reinforcing the following (according to Boyd):

* Menace. Attacks that undermine or threaten basic human survival instincts.
* Mistrust. Increases divisions between groups (ie. conservatives and liberals in the US).
* Uncertainty. Undermine economic activity by decreasing confidence in the future.

It occurs to me that the one thing that a nation could do towards denying its asymmetrical enemy such aims is to denying them the ability to attack its cohesion. In the case of the United States vs Al Queda, more must be done to increase security, surveillance, and above all access to vulnerable targets.The door of opportunity must be closed to the enemy. Many steps have still not been taken to do so, despite the continued threats made by Al Queda. Their goals are being attained because we have allowed ourselves to be inconvenienced by their threats while doing little to inconvenience their ability to strike from within. Still we allow such free access to our ports of entry as to make it relatively easy for anyone to visit our country.

I recommend severe measures be taken to prohibit visits of citizens from the countries from which our enemies operate with the exeption of those on official business with our government until this war over. Why should we allow them to make our citizens lives difficult and dangerous while allowing them to move freely among us? If it takes a bit of so called "racial" profiling, then what is that to us? If it were known that people from Islamic countries who support terrorists were not going to be allowed to visit, and their lives were made inconvenient as well, then perhaps their governments would do more to police up the radicals that have caused such misery to the world.

This is just one example of dealing with an external asymmetric enemy. Something much more difficult to deal with is such a group operating within one's own country. This calls for action by all levels of the police, security, intelligence, and military branches. Steps must be taken to isloate such a group, as (it is a shame to admit it) the United States felt it had to do with the Native American tribes by forcing them on reservations. I only mean this as a last resort, but it is a strategy that must be implemented against an internal foe who will not negotiate. At least they can be better contained in such a manner.

Well, I hope this will ellicit some good discussion and ideas from others from our forum. I look forward to their comments.

Regards,

PS: My specific examples are not meant to incite a furor of ranting about the current situation, but honestly meant to serve as food for thought. Sorry Seamus if I went over the line a bit.