Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[Edward Campbell]

spot on. Good grouping. You're zeroed.

Sorry, Dare and paracowboy, I disagree.  I think Infanteer was right, insurgent is the right word.

Leave aside the exact, Oxford Canadian Dictionary, definition â “ which doesn't indicate that insurgents are, somehow, military; we need to sensitize Canadians to the fact that these people are not just terrorists in some far off land who can, possibly, be dealt with by police using an anti-terrorism law.  That's not what we face.  We are facing insurgents who are rebelling against our government here in Canada.  They want to force our government to accede to their demands â “ whatever they are.  It's not criminals attacking someone else, somewhere else; it is a real enemy attacking us, in our home-towns â “ that makes them insurgents in my book.

 

[Marty]

" it is a real enemy attacking us, in our home-towns"
IMHO this is semantics........I think "Enemy" is the correct term for these O2 burners , and its high time they are teated as such

 

[dutchie]

I don't think it matters much what you call 'them', as long as you call them the enemy. Of that, there can be no variance. Now that they are properly identified, they must be dealt with. They need to be pursued as 'Insurgents' by our militaries, as 'Terrorists' by our police and intelligence services, and as 'Illegal Aliens' by our Customs/Immigration services. This war cannot be won using only one avenue.

Further, the quicker we separate Islam and these animals, the quicker we will see the enemy. These 'people' are no more 'Muslim' than David Koresh was a 'Christian'. They are religiously perverted. Having said that, I fully expect that future attacks to come from the Arab world by people claiming to be Muslim, and claiming to be acting on 'God's Word'.

I sincerely hope we can turn the tide in this war soon, before it gets much worse. My deepest condolences to those killed and injured, and all Londoners and Britons. God Bless.

 

[McG]

. . . this is an attack on us.  Those reasons cited above prove that this easily could have been Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

This is a war people - don't look at it as some sort of underground isolated terrorist attacks, this is an offensive attack in our rear area by the enemy aimed at the moral level of warfare.  These are not terrorists, these are insurgents, and the battlefield ranges from Bali, to Kashmir, to Baghdad, to our own streets.

Obviously, after over 3 years of fighting, Al Qaeda has not lost its ability to reach out and strike us.  This is a war, we must do one of two things or these attacks will only continue.  We must seek an understanding - dar al-Ahd - with the specific demands of the Insurgency.  Or the gloves must come off and we must root out and destroy support for the Islamic Insurgency at the physical, mental, and moral planes; no more pussy-footing with "democracy" and whatnot, for we must go as Sherman and Grant did, to destroy any and all ability to fight us.

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." William Tecumseh Sherman

Infanteer,
I'm at least 90% in agreement here.  A few small variations in view though.  LIke others, I don't feel "insurgent" is the correct word.  There are insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan fighting forgeign forces and thier own governments trying to rebuild.

Sorry, Dare and paracowboy, I disagree.  I think Infanteer was right, insurgent is the right word.

Leave aside the exact, Oxford Canadian Dictionary, definition which doesn't indicate that insurgents are, somehow, military; we need to sensitize Canadians to the fact that these people are not just terrorists in some far off land who can, possibly, be dealt with by police using an anti-terrorism law.  That's not what we face.  We are facing insurgents who are rebelling against our government here in Canada.  They want to force our government to accede to their demands whatever they are.  It's not criminals attacking someone else, somewhere else; it is a real enemy attacking us, in our home-towns that makes them insurgents in my book.

Edward,
It is for this exact description that the word "terrorist" must be used.  It is an unscroupulous human being content to use murder, fear, and panic against us in our homes.  They are like the executioners of genocide, but with out the means.  They would just as happily kill us all today and not have to worry about resolving the dispute.

Infanteer,
I had one other concern with your post, and that was a preception that you sounded ready to turn your back on reconstruction.  The military solution is required, but it cannot work alone.  I hope that I've read too much into your post and that this was not your intended message.

 

[Dare]

Sorry, Dare and paracowboy, I disagree.  I think Infanteer was right, insurgent is the right word.

Leave aside the exact, Oxford Canadian Dictionary, definition â “ which doesn't indicate that insurgents are, somehow, military; we need to sensitize Canadians to the fact that these people are not just terrorists in some far off land who can, possibly, be dealt with by police using an anti-terrorism law.  That's not what we face.  We are facing insurgents who are rebelling against our government here in Canada.  They want to force our government to accede to their demands â “ whatever they are.  It's not criminals attacking someone else, somewhere else; it is a real enemy attacking us, in our home-towns â “ that makes them insurgents in my book.

They are not rebelling against our government. They're murdering innocent civilians. Now, for you, the word insurgent, might bring "them" closer to home. But the word "insurgent" is not one that is worthy of vilification. Nor is it accurate. What we have to do, is sensitize Canadians to the fact that "terrorists" are *here*. Not change the termonology. *They* are *here*. Most people think that is ridiculous. The idea of an insurgency in Canada is even further away from the grasp of the average Canadian. We're not at War against Insurgency. If you read what these radicals are saying *amongst themselves* (rather than reading their PR), you will find, they want all nations to yield to the Will of Allah (or in reality, their will). This includes the government, yes, but it is not strictly the government. It is ALL people. I don't want to change this thread into a debate on the nature of the War on Terrorism, but I will end this up saying: 1) Acts of Terrorism must be abhored and selected apart from insurgencies. 2) My mother was in the Kings Cross station taking trains all over only a few days ago, and a friend of mine just missed getting hit by 10 minutes. They're getting closer to home for me, and for a lot of other people in Canada, as well. Perhaps, this will be a wakeup call for Canada. Hopefully, the public will gather enough to take stock of who these people are, and how they are getting here. BEFORE we get hit. Now, it is possible there are insurgents in amongst these terrorists, but I have yet to see it. We don't call serial killers insurgents, even if they have a political view (like the Unibomber).

 

[Infanteer]

Calling these people "insurgents" militarizes these people.

I could list off pages and pages of successful attacks.

Look at the camps that were set up in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc.  Sure, special cells were instructed on how to infiltrate and conduct terrorist attacks but these guys were being instructed in how to fight.  The motivations that these attackers used in London are of the same militant ones that drive Chechens to fight off Russians, Afghanis to fight against us, Iraqis to take to the streets of Fallujah and an Najaf, operatives to attack sites throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe, and men to, by the will of their conviction, drive planes into the World Trade Center.

Criminal acts are often performed for financial gain - gangs and organized crime aim for status and for material profit.  Crime itself can be seen as one half of a "business" scale which falls below moral acceptability; since it is on the "immoral" side of the bar, there is no recourse to law and thus violence is often the preferred method of dispute resolution.

I don't see criminal motivations here, I only see blatantly obvious offensive attacks by soldiers.  Because they don't fall into the neatly ordered, Geneva Convention ascribed paradigm of "soldier" does not make them less so.  If you think that the years of continuous attacks are anything near that of organizations like Hizballah, Abu Nidal, or the Red Brigade, then perhaps you need to take a closer look at what these people are saying.

They are not part of a military, nor attacking a military asset.

Neither were the people of Hamburg, Dresden, or Hiroshima.  Jihad is total war, and Total War is a bitch.  Until we figure out that we are in a total war with these folks, we can go on pretending we are chasing Thelma and Louise through the Hindu-Kush mountains.

They are *terrorists* plain and simple. They are several orders of magnitude below the legitimacy of an insurgent. Absolutely this is a war, but these people are NOT warriors. They are COWARDS, and SLIME. They are *terrorists*.   An "insurgent" fights against the authority of an establish government, it is not a mass murderer of innocent men, women and children. Maybe even a better term would be "cultist mass murderers".

Emotive sure - but does this get you anywhere?  These men have attacked us.  They have attacked us in means that they see as acceptable within the confines of Jihad (re: Total War).  You can lob all the insults you want at them, and I'm sure they'll respond with "Infidel" and "Apostate", but in the end, does it add anything to the debate around WHY and HOW these attacks took place?

By the way, Al Qaeda has explicitly stated that, as the banner for Islamic Insurgency, they fight the apostate regimes (the "established governments") of the Middle East who rule in a manner opposed to their interpretation of God's Word.  They view the West as supporters of these regimes and thus as legitimate targets.  Debate it all you want, but they are attacking us for a reason.

I agree, but this is not an 'Insurgency'. These are terrorists. Criminals. Period.

I don't think it matters much what you call 'them', as long as you call them the enemy. Of that, there can be no variance. Now that they are properly identified, they must be dealt with. They need to be pursued as 'Insurgents' by our militaries, as 'Terrorists' by our police and intelligence services, and as 'Illegal Aliens' by our Customs/Immigration services. This war cannot be won using only one avenue.

I'm at least 90% in agreement here.  A few small variations in view though.  LIke others, I don't feel "insurgent" is the correct word.  There are insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan fighting forgeign forces and thier own governments trying to rebuild.
Edward,
It is for this exact description that the word "terrorist" must be used.  It is an unscroupulous human being content to use murder, fear, and panic against us in our homes.  They are like the executioners of genocide, but with out the means.  They would just as happily kill us all today and not have to worry about resolving the dispute.

Terrorism is a tactic, and one that they've used to great effect, but IMHO it doesn't effectively describe their motivations and their goals.  Terrorism first became a buzz word with anarchists.  Later, it would be the domain of socialist groups during the Cold War.  Picking up on Ayatollah Khomeini inspired efforts to paint the West as decadent and immoral, many Islamic groups sprouted up as well.  However, these groups were usually on a tight-leash, and their tactics were an extention of the state that funded and supported them in an effort to play the "Great Game" of the Cold War.   The rabid 10% (which is now part of the Insurgency) would gladly take part in the Cold War.

These attacks, along with the long list of others that Al Qaeda have taken the banner for, are something completely different.  They are not some sneaky attacks by state-sponsored terrorists, they are attacks that are fairly easy to predict (Britney saw it coming) because the enemy has announced that we are at war, why we are at war, and what they are going to do to us because we are at war.  Call their acts unscrupulous but it does nothing, because we are probably considered equally unscrupulous in their eyes for shooting up half of Iraq, dropping bombs on weddings in Afghanistan, and having newpapers show Lindi Englund disrepsecting Arab men for kicks.  Perception is key, and our perception is useless if it doesn't consider what the enemy is really up to.

Here is a quote that I think shows why the "Law Enforcement" approach does us no good:

Instead of "painting the map red" as did Britain's Imperial elite, America's elites use U.S. law - to paraphrase the inane Woodrow Wilson - to "teach the world to make good laws."  A noted Harvard professor spoke for those eager to wage gavel-powered war, arguing that "[t]he most powerful weapon against terrorists is our commitment to the rule of law.  We must use courts to make clear that terrorism is a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war.  And then we must no make martyrs of murderers."  The professor does not say who the courts would convince that jihad is a crime - Americans maybe, Muslims never - and also does not say how courts will stop attacks.  Helpfully, however, a colleague of hers has said, "If alleged terrorists are planning future attacks, these attacks can be uncovered and thwarted while law enforcement officials gather evidence."  You see, there is nothing to it.

The legalistic lens America uses to deal with the world causes confusion about what we are doing, and what we need to do, against bin Laden: Are we waging a war, or hot on the trail of Thelma and Louise?  As I said, we are predisposed by two-plus centuries of history to look for law-enforcement solutions to problems.  In bin Laden's case, this predisposition is encouraged by our leaders' insistence that bin Laden means to destroy our freedom, liberties, and democracy.  If that is what bin Laden intends, it is only natural we seek protection from the FBI and the Justice Department.  Here is more evidence of the danger that lies in our elites' inability or refusal to recognize bin Laden's goals and to respond effectively, rather than in ways they - and we - find intellectually comfortable.  "Five years of investigation and trials and appeals, as after the first World Trade Center [attack in 1993], deter nobody," William Safire wrote on 12 September 2001, and yet the chase-and-arrest technique still holds sway, only now the world's most powerful military is packing the handcuffs.

Michael Sheuer, Imperial Hubris pp: 185-186

This is why I believe terrorism is the wrong word - it encapsulates what is happening into legalistic terms, which the record of the last ten years shows clearly isn't the case.

We did not destroy fascism by threatening legal action and arresting people - sure, we did that after the war with Nurnburg with spectacular show trials that could have just as easily have been handled by handing Goering and Co. over to the Soviets - but we could only do this after we had won the war by destroying every inch of ability and will to resist on the part of the German and Japanese people.  This is the course I believe may be necessary in winning this war.  We can worry about the pieces, like we did with Germany and Japan, after we have won.

 

[Infanteer]

Further, the quicker we separate Islam and these animals, the quicker we will see the enemy. These 'people' are no more 'Muslim' than David Koresh was a 'Christian'. They are religiously perverted. Having said that, I fully expect that future attacks to come from the Arab world by people claiming to be Muslim, and claiming to be acting on 'God's Word'.

"The war is fundamentally religious, under no circumstances should we forget this enmity betwen us and the infidels."

These are the words of Osama bin Laden.

We do ourselves no favours by disrespecting our enemy and denigrating his convictions in his Faith.  These people are as Muslim as any other Muslim - they are just as serious about their Faith as were the Crusaders who words, similar to the ones above, from Pope Urban II when he launched the Crusades to the Holy Land.

Obviously, due to the fact that Muslims in Mindanao, Muslims in Afghanistan, Muslims in Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, Algeria, London and Sydney are saying the same thing as the comments above means that we should take this as a serious action by Muslims who believe that their call to Jihad is right.  This is not a cult - it is a movement, and judging from the fact that their is violence against the West in some way, shape or form every single day, it is one that seems to be picking up followers as time progresses.

Just because they are violent does not mean that they are religiously bankrupt - religion, and the battle for the soul in general, have been a huge motivator in conflict since we figured out that war was a good way to solve things.  This doesn't make them any less of a Muslim, just as lacing up your boots doesn't make you any less of a Christian [or whatever one decribes themselves as].

Perception.

 

[KevinB]

BLAH BLAH BLAH


FIND, FIX, AND KILL  Durkha Durkha Motherfuckers


Condolences to the Brits

 

[Infanteer]

BLAH BLAH BLAH


FIND, FIX, AND KILL  Durkha Durkha Motherfuckers


Condolences to the Brits

Hey, that is what I am getting at with the reference to Sherman.  I just like to wrap it up in a nice box.... :threat:

 

[McG]

Hey, that is what I am getting at with the reference to Sherman.   I just like to wrap it up in a nice box.... :threat:

So, you have given-up on reconstruction?

 

[KevinB]

Hey, that is what I am getting at with the reference to Sherman.   I just like to wrap it up in a nice box.... :threat:

Your so much more eloquent than me -- Shoot them in the M*^*er F$%king FACE is more my style.

We have to do both PRT function and Hunter Killer work --- Let Dwyer take a page from the Grey Fox playbook.

Get off our ass - send the Pats into Iraq (you know how angry and vile we'd be on a 1 year dry tour  :threat and summ it the F-up.  Bush is right - anyone not with us is against us (so ante up Canada) make the other nations saddle up - or kick them in the junk.

 

[paracowboy]

fine, I'll call them insurgents. I'll be happy to carve "Insurgent" in big, red letters into their foreheads.

 

[dutchie]

Infanteer - My point was misunderstood:

We have to make sure we don't paint all Muslims with the Terrorist brush. Differentiating 'Muslim Terrorist/Insurgent' and 'Muslim Canadian/American/Briton/Etc' is easy, just remove the word 'Muslim', and you're left with "Terrorist/Insurgent' or 'Canadian/American/Briton/Aussie'.

Once you identify the target, refer to KevinB's post, FFE.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I don't care what name we call them or euphemism we use to describe them:

MY ADVICE TO TONY BLAIR

Find.

Kill.

Repeat.

    :threat: :skull: :threat: :skull:
http://www.secondbreakfast.net/archives/001989.html

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer,
I had one other concern with your post, and that was a preception that you sounded ready to turn your back on reconstruction.  The military solution is required, but it cannot work alone.  I hope that I've read too much into your post and that this was not your intended message.

Are you talking about Afghanistan?  I take it you've read into my new sigline?

Well, perhaps we shouldn't be wasting our time with reconstruction - what good do soldiers do when they are building schools and wells in Afghanistan while we are getting attacked in our own streets?

Is it worth trying to rebuild Afghanistan when 2000 years of tribal politics, religious strife, ethnic conflict, and geo-strategic imperative will ensure that the "cockpit of the world" (to quote one British Viceroy) will continue to be the Slagheap of the Earth (to quote one Afghan elder).

"Democracy on the end of a bayonet" is a joke - it took us in the ABCA world (Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States) 8 Centuries of political evolution, complete with debates among great men, conflict between groups, religious wars, uprisings, and outright revolution, to achieve what we have now.  We should be proud of it and cherish it, but we should also not be foolish enough to think that we can pass it around like a nice hat.

The most stable period in recent history for Afghanistan?  When the "Iron Amir", Amir Abdul Rehman, basically clamped down with a bloody fist on opposition with backing from the British.

Here is why I remain suspicious of reconstruction:

1.  Do you think Pakistan, with Musharaf walking the tightrope and India constantly percolating, will really allow a government dominated by the Northern Alliance, who were allied with India and Russia, to sit on its other flank?

2.  Do you think the Soviets, who poured over 100,000 men into Afghanistan and stayed for 13 years, figured out that the Afghans are xenophobic and tough - we are all outsiders to them, are we not?

3.  Do you think that the Pashtuns, who are a majority of the population and have supplied the rulers of Afghanistan for the last two centuries are going to sit back and watch the heirs of Ahmed Shah Masood take over?

4.  Do you think that Hamid Karzai and Co., who never fought the Soviets, never fought the Communists, can blow into Kabul and set up a viable democracy.  Robert Kaplan was right, the Afghans are strong, stubborn and hardy people - I'm not sure they will suffer fools gladly, and I don't think for a minute that they will see the expat Karzai (despite is Pashtun background), with his nice suits and Italian shoes and American commando bodyguards, as anything different than Najibullah and Babrak Karmal.

It is reasons like these that I am skeptical.  I have no doubt that our intentions are good and that we score tactical successes, but the forces of History seem ready to overwhelm them.  I prefer the "Adams" approach to that of "Wilson" - we'll be friendly with them if they trade with us, we'll bring the Wrath of God upon them if they throw rocks at us, and other than that, they can sort their own lives out.  If they want our help, they'll come to us.

Maybe I'm getting a tad cynical, but the events of today seem to lead me to believe that to quote Bismarck, rebuilding the unbuildable and winning the unwinnable are not "worth the bones of single Pomeranian Grenadier".  For now, we should do what the British did after getting their asses handed to them a few times by the Afghanis - stay at arms length, go in for a raid and "shoot them in the M*^*er F$%king FACE" when we have to, and let them and Allah sort the rest out.

Little fuel for the fire,
Infanteer

 

[Dare]

I could list off pages and pages of successful attacks.

This thread is about the attacks in London.

Look at the camps that were set up in the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, etc.  Sure, special cells were instructed on how to infiltrate and conduct terrorist attacks but these guys were being instructed in how to fight.  The motivations that these attackers used in London are of the same militant ones that drive Chechens to fight off Russians, Afghanis to fight against us, Iraqis to take to the streets of Fallujah and an Najaf, operatives to attack sites throughout Africa, Asia, and Europe, and men to, by the will of their conviction, drive planes into the World Trade Center.

Criminal acts are often performed for financial gain - gangs and organized crime aim for status and for material profit.  Crime itself can be seen as one half of a "business" scale which falls below moral acceptability; since it is on the "immoral" side of the bar, there is no recourse to law and thus violence is often the preferred method of dispute resolution.

I don't see criminal motivations here, I only see blatantly obvious offensive attacks by soldiers.  Because they don't fall into the neatly ordered, Geneva Convention ascribed paradigm of "soldier" does not make them less so.  If you think that the years of continuous attacks are anything near that of organizations like Hizballah, Abu Nidal, or the Red Brigade, then perhaps you need to take a closer look at what these people are saying.

These terrorists don't fall into any description of "soldier" as far as I'm concerned.

Neither were the people of Hamburg, Dresden, or Hiroshima.  Jihad is total war, and Total War is a *****.  Until we figure out that we are in a total war with these folks, we can go on pretending we are chasing Thelma and Louise through the Hindu-Kush mountains.

And what? Respond with total war? No. We are *not* in a total war. Some of those loonies are in a total war (in their heads), and we are taking the moral high ground, which ultimately will prevail because innocent people have voices and power, and innocent people don't like to get blown up. Lot's of innocent people around the world are now gaining more and more say in their governments and will fight terrorism. Thus is our strategy of creating democraticly accountable governments that respond to the will of the people (the innocent people Al Qaeda (and offshoots/splinter cells/ideological relatives/etc) want to kill, including ourselves). Now do I think we should up it a few notches? Yeah, maybe 50 notches..

Emotive sure - but does this get you anywhere?  These men have attacked us.  They have attacked us in means that they see as acceptable within the confines of Jihad (re: Total War).  You can lob all the insults you want at them, and I'm sure they'll respond with "Infidel" and "Apostate", but in the end, does it add anything to the debate around WHY and HOW these attacks took place?

I wasn't talking about the why, nor the how. Why or how the attacks took place have nothing to do with the distinction in terms.  It's the effects and the intent that matters in that.  My description of them seems insulting (and it SHOULD) not just because of the meaning but because of the accuracy. They *are* cowards. Period. They *are* scum. Period. It's not what I brought up to insult them, but to describe them. As they, in their existance, are an insult to all of us.

By the way, Al Qaeda has explicitly stated that, as the banner for Islamic Insurgency, they fight the apostate regimes (the "established governments") of the Middle East who rule in a manner opposed to their interpretation of God's Word.  They view the West as supporters of these regimes and thus as legitimate targets.  Debate it all you want, but they are attacking us for a reason.

PR. I suggest you make a few trips to radical Islamic websites. There's more than enough.

Terrorism is a tactic, and one that they've used to great effect, but IMHO it doesn't effectively describe their motivations and their goals.  Terrorism first became a buzz word with anarchists.  Later, it would be the domain of socialist groups during the Cold War.  Picking up on Ayatollah Khomeini inspired efforts to paint the West as decadent and immoral, many Islamic groups sprouted up as well.  However, these groups were usually on a tight-leash, and their tactics were an extention of the state that funded and supported them in an effort to play the "Great Game" of the Cold War.  The rabid 10% (which is now part of the Insurgency) would gladly take part in the Cold War.

Terrorism is what we are at war against. It is defined. It is not a buzz word. Yes, it is a tactic. If you want to cooly describe it as that. Genocide is a tactic too.

These attacks, along with the long list of others that Al Qaeda have taken the banner for, are something completely different.  They are not some sneaky attacks by state-sponsored terrorists, they are attacks that are fairly easy to predict (Britney saw it coming) because the enemy has announced that we are at war, why we are at war, and what they are going to do to us because we are at war.  Call their acts unscrupulous but it does nothing, because we are probably considered equally unscrupulous in their eyes for shooting up half of Iraq, dropping bombs on weddings in Afghanistan, and having newpapers show Lindi Englund disrepsecting Arab men for kicks.  Perception is key, and our perception is useless if it doesn't consider what the enemy is really up to.

Back to the moral relativity, I see. Intent is key in all things moral. "We" did not pick up one day and choose to blow up a wedding. "They" did pick up one day and chose to blow up innocent people. There's the difference. It's clear and definied. I'm afraid naked-man pyramids or standing on a box or a "non-believer" touching a Qu'ran will never in my lifetime equivicate to a beheading. To lend credence to that does not to justice to good cause.

Here is a quote that I think shows why the "Law Enforcement" approach does us no good:

This is why I believe terrorism is the wrong word - it encapsulates what is happening into legalistic terms, which the record of the last ten years shows clearly isn't the case.

We did not destroy fascism by threatening legal action and arresting people - sure, we did that after the war with Nurnburg with spectacular show trials that could have just as easily have been handled by handing Goering and Co. over to the Soviets - but we could only do this after we had won the war by destroying every inch of ability and will to resist on the part of the German and Japanese people.  This is the course I believe may be necessary in winning this war.

Why would you think I am taking a Law Enforcement approach on the War on Terrorism, because I describe it as an Act of Terrorism? We are *at war* against Terror. These people *are* Terrorists. It might be time to put that book down, Infanteer. While Sheuer might quote Safire, I doubt the reverse would happen. I'm all for taking the battle to them. You bet. I just disagree with the term "insurgent". It's unsuitable.

 

[S McKee]

Something to think about - here is what I said yesterday:

...and, here is what the attackers stated:

There you have it.   Notice that there is no mention of democracy, freedom of speech, or separation of church and state.

Regardless, this is an attack on us.   Those reasons cited above prove that this easily could have been Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

This is a war people - don't look at it as some sort of underground isolated terrorist attacks, this is an offensive attack in our rear area by the enemy aimed at the moral level of warfare.   These are not terrorists, these are insurgents, and the battlefield ranges from Bali, to Kashmir, to Baghdad, to our own streets.

Obviously, after over 3 years of fighting, Al Qaeda has not lost its ability to reach out and strike us.   This is a war, we must do one of two things or these attacks will only continue.   We must seek an understanding - dar al-Ahd - with the specific demands of the Insurgency.   Or the gloves must come off and we must root out and destroy support for the Islamic Insurgency at the physical, mental, and moral planes; no more *****-footing with "democracy" and whatnot, for we must go as Sherman and Grant did, to destroy any and all ability to fight us.

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." William Tecumseh Sherman

Infanteer

Outstanding post! Lets give them all they want and more.

 

[Infanteer]

This thread is about the attacks in London.

...of which it is simply the latest in an unending list of attacks by people who really do not like us for some reason.  Are you implying that the attacks in London are unrelated to anything else?  Obviously not, so the rest of the discussion is relevent.

These terrorists don't fall into any description of "soldier" as far as I'm concerned.

Well, have your cake then.

They arm themselves, they train, they announce their goals, they fight our soldiers and attack our civilians, and they do so to for a common interest.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it just may be a duck.

Maybe I should send them a copy of the Geneva Conventions and ask them to conform so that we can end this debate?

And what? Respond with total war? No. We are *not* in a total war. Some of those loonies are in a total war (in their heads), and we are taking the moral high ground, which ultimately will prevail because innocent people have voices and power, and innocent people don't like to get blown up.

With the streets of the Middle East ablaze, people dying in conflict and combat everyday, fear of death paramount in the minds of many around the world, and outright competition at the level of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, you claim that we are not in a Total War?

Lot's of innocent people around the world are now gaining more and more say in their governments and will fight terrorism. Thus is our strategy of creating democraticly accountable governments that respond to the will of the people (the innocent people Al Qaeda (and offshoots/splinter cells/ideological relatives/etc) want to kill, including ourselves). Now do I think we should up it a few notches? Yeah, maybe 50 notches..

...and that, to date, has got us where?  Judging by the events of today in London, we are just as vulnerable (if not more so) to attacks from the enemy as we were on September 10, 2001.  The Director of Central Intelligence stated this to the Senate as well, so maybe I'm not alone in my thinking.

As for "democracy on the end of a bayonet", my comments above should state my views on this venture.

I wasn't talking about the why, nor the how. Why or how the attacks took place have nothing to do with the distinction in terms.   It's the effects and the intent that matters in that.

Causality - we can rail at affects and intent all we want, but if we don't determine causality, then all we do is get to be on the receiving end of more effects and intent.  The why and the how (which I have stated is a religiously inspired, pan-Islamic Insurgency) is how we solve the problem.

My description of them seems insulting (and it SHOULD) not just because of the meaning but because of the accuracy. They *are* cowards. Period. They *are* scum. Period. It's not what I brought up to insult them, but to describe them. As they, in their existance, are an insult to all of us.

:boring:

Well, now that their feelings are hurt, we can move on.  Labelling them cowards does not do anything to deter them from killing you and me.

PR. I suggest you make a few trips to radical Islamic websites  There's more than enough.

OK - PR then.  I have no doubt that the Insurgency has its 10% who do want to gun for the West because we are liberal, democratic secular states.  These are the inheritors of Khomeini and the only real solution is a Hellfire.  However, as far as I'm concerned, Osama bin Laden isn't in that category and Al Qaeda says what they mean and do what they say.  I'm taking them seriously not putting them in the same page as internet rants.

Terrorism is what we are at war against. It is defined. It is not a buzz word. Yes, it is a tactic. If you want to cooly describe it as that. Genocide is a tactic too.

Okay, we are fighting Terrorism.  What's next after that, fighting Section Attacks and Strategic Bombardment?  Terrorism is a loose term (people can say that the USSR was a terrorist organization) at best.  If we want to base our actions upon a loosely defined term then we will get a open-ended strategy that will mean defeat in the end.

Apparently, others agree with me:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30081.0.html

Back to the moral relativity, I see. Intent is key in all things moral.

Sorry, you're right.

Dumb Muslims - what do they know.  They should be sitting at their computers like us, learning that the Truth lies in minimum wage, Chevy Suburbans, and steak and eggs.

Whew, I feel glad I'm up here and they're down there.

As far as I am concerned, if they are willing to fight and die for it, then we must treat it as a serious cause that is justified to some people somehow.  I refuse to paint the world as "Good" and "Evil" - that can stay in Dungeons and Dragons....

"We" did not pick up one day and choose to blow up a wedding. "They" did pick up one day and chose to blow up innocent people. There's the difference. It's clear and definied.

Well, if I was Abdul the Pashtun, and my son just got blown up with the rest of the wedding party, I'd probably say "Why are the American's here dropping bombs on me?"

Regardless of the reason we are there (which you are right, is a good one), people tend to get mad and strike back when they are being kicked.

I'm afraid naked-man pyramids or standing on a box or a "non-believer" touching a Qu'ran will never in my lifetime equivicate to a beheading. To lend credence to that does not to justice to good cause.

That's good for you, but that does nothing to stop them from doing it.  In the end, it is just your word against the guy with the rusty knife - where is that going to go?

Why would you think I am taking a Law Enforcement approach on the War on Terrorism, because I describe it as an Act of Terrorism?

If you looked at the quotes before my response, you would notice that they were directed towards McG, Paracowboy, and Caesar.

We are *at war* against Terror. These people *are* Terrorists. It might be time to put that book down, Infanteer. While Sheuer might quote Safire, I doubt the reverse would happen.

Well that's cute.  Time to put the book down.  Are you going to respond to the claim, or are you just going to tell me to "put the book down".

I will, like Britney Spears, admit that I don't no much about anything in this incredibly complicated world.  I like to chat, and pick up on various different outlooks of the world, and to present them here for others to have a look at and to debate.  The view of Sheuer, as much as you deride it, seems to make sense to me.  I've only been to the very edge of dar al-Islam, but it makes sense that there is something beyond either criminality or slinking terrorist groups working with KGB-backed spies in what we are dealing with - it is the impression I remember from playing a little cat-and-mouse in two Muslim communities that really didn't seem to like us one bit; the hair on my neck would stand up when we cruised through them.

Others have Been There and Done That to an extent far beyond what I have done, and I'd be glad to hear from them.  But if I choose to read into matters to understand what I have experienced and you tell me to "put down the book", then I'll politely tell you to stick it up your ass.

 

[a_majoor]

Democracy at the point of a bayonet may not be the "best" response to the problem, but since the problem is so deeply rooted in the dysfunctional nature of the societies in the Middle east (and to a lesser extent ion the various Asian nations with Al Quada splinter cells), it is hard to think of another means of getting to the objective. IF we were really in a hurry, I suppose it could be arranged for the land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Hindu Kush be turned into glowing glass, regime change is longer and messier but has been proven to work (i.e. reconstructionism in the South, occupying National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) so long as we have: a. totally defeated the enemy society to such an extent that the ruling ideologies are totally discredited, and; b. are willing to stay and do the work of reconstruction for at least a generation.

American forces in Iraq are close enough at hand to do a "March to the Sea" through Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia if required, I think (and it is only speculation on my part) that the Administration does not feel ready to do so, and is pinning their hopes on internal uprisings like the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon to do most of the work for them. In other threads I have speculated that it IS possible for the US to perform military actions throughout the Middle East, and that their preference for strategic and logistical reasons might take the form of violent "head shots" against opponent regimes to decapitate them and unhinge their ability to offer coordination or support to the Jihadis.

While "head shots" are militarily feasible, they do not conform to the requirements to discredit the enemy society and the ruling ideologies, nor does it set up conditions for a successful reconstruction. I believe the Americans are coming to these realizations, and we will see a change in the way WW IV is being prosecuted, with a lot more emphasis on the 4GW precepts of destroying the opponent's society through cultural, propaganda and economic means.

 

[Infanteer]

Democracy at the point of a bayonet may not be the "best" response to the problem, but since the problem is so deeply rooted in the dysfunctional nature of the societies in the Middle east (and to a lesser extent ion the various Asian nations with Al Quada splinter cells), it is hard to think of another means of getting to the objective. IF we were really in a hurry, I suppose it could be arranged for the land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Hindu Kush be turned into glowing glass, regime change is longer and messier but has been proven to work (i.e. reconstructionism in the South, occupying National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) so long as we have: a. totally defeated the enemy society to such an extent that the ruling ideologies are totally discredited, and; b. are willing to stay and do the work of reconstruction for at least a generation.

Ok, but I still think that Iraq and Afghanistan are the two completely worst places to start "nation building".

Germany worked, but that was because it was a Western, liberal democratic state that was hijacked during a time of intense social crisis.  Luckily we were able to save the land of Goethe, Schiller, and Beethoven from going over the edge.

Japan worked, but that was because it had a tradition of westernization stemming back for almost a century.  This tradition was usurped from within by the military, but we pounded the crap out of them and put them back on track.

South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore also seem to be success stories.  However, they weren't overnight and I think these places were blessed by the fact that they are almost ethnically homogeneous.  Commentators on Athenian democracy have pointed out that it worked because of this homogeneity - tolerance that we find in the ABCA take the hundreds of years of evolution to form.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq are riven with tribal differences, ethnic differences, religious differences, and geo-political meddling by both regional and global players.  I think these forces will overwhelm a transplanted democracy.

Perhaps we should have kept Saddam on board and had him go after Al Qaeda and like-minded individuals within an on the borders of Iraq; he sure did have the propensity for it when we sent him after Iran.  A Machiavellian ploy right out of the 17th century..sure - but as I said above, it helped the British solve the problem with Afghanistan 100 years ago.  ???

American forces in Iraq are close enough at hand to do a "March to the Sea" through Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia if required, I think (and it is only speculation on my part) that the Administration does not feel ready to do so, and is pinning their hopes on internal uprisings like the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon to do most of the work for them. In other threads I have speculated that it IS possible for the US to perform military actions throughout the Middle East, and that their preference for strategic and logistical reasons might take the form of violent "head shots" against opponent regimes to decapitate them and unhinge their ability to offer coordination or support to the Jihadis.

While "head shots" are militarily feasible, they do not conform to the requirements to discredit the enemy society and the ruling ideologies, nor does it set up conditions for a successful reconstruction. I believe the Americans are coming to these realizations, and we will see a change in the way WW IV is being prosecuted, with a lot more emphasis on the 4GW precepts of destroying the opponent's society through cultural, propaganda and economic means.

Very true - I await General Sherman, who will make Georgia dar al-Islam howl.