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

[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.

[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....

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.