Let's hear some practical ideas.

[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.