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

[Dare]

...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.

My dispute with the terminology was about the London attacks. Thanks.

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.

Interestingly enough, these attackers did not fight soldiers, did not (knowingly, as of yet) announce their goals. We do not know what their interests are, we assume they are Islamic in nature. We don't know what branch or offshoot. I don't know of any soldiers that have blown up civilian trains for the sake of blowing up civilians.

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

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?

Streets of the middle east ablaze.. OK. That's a bit dramatic, don't you think? No. We are *NOT* in a total war. Not even close. If we were our economy would be converted to war production and we would be conscripting or recruiting in MUCH higher numbers.

...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.

Many attacks have been stopped in London. Cells disrupted and arrested. That is called progress. If you think leaving Iraq or visaversa blowing it up even more is going to make these nuts leave the country, no chance.

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

Yeah. Japan. Jihad has nothing on Bushido. Yeah. It takes time.

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.

As I said, I understand the why and how.

: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.

Interestingly enough, the "label" or correct definition, (if you like), was made because it's true, not as some sort of deterrence(why would you think that?).

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.

No, the 10% are the ones that are at war with the west purely because of Iraq. Or because of military bases.

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.

People can say that walking my dog is terrorism. That doesn't make it true. People can say that my cat is a dog. That doesn't make it true. Terrorism is defined. It's real. We *are* basing our actions on defeating terrorism. It IS winnable and needed. It is not open ended. We don't declare war on strategic bombardment because the people who have declared war on US have not this capability and because we don't enjoy killing innocent people or having innocent people killed. They do have the ability to bring in bombs and hurt the unprotected. We have to stop that.

Apparently, others agree with me:

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

Couldn't care less how many people agree with you. Because others agree with me as well. Fortunately, they include our leadership.

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 there 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....

That's fine. You do that then. You can view them as justified all you want. As far as I'm concerned, not only are they not justified in what they have done, they need to feel the hurt. It's also likely these particular Muslims (if they were), are well educated in the west. It takes a lot of guile to pull off what they did.

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?"

If I was ME, and the Americans missed a cruise missile that hit my house. I'm sure they would apologize (as they do) and I would be mad at the individuals who made the error, but I'm not about to go on Jihad because of it.

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.

Kick the terrorists until they don't get up. How's that sound? I can't say I'm sure what you're advocating? Isolationism/retreat or full out conquest/occupation? It doesn't seem to be the same thing as What We Are Doing.

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?

The word is what drives them. Words carry weight.

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

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.

I have a few more arabic words for you, since you like that one. Look up dhimmi, jizyah and taquiyya. Maybe you'll catch a gleen of why others in the middle east aren't too pleased at the theocracy and why we all fall for the lies over here.

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 ***.

As long as you say it politely. I still love you Infanteer.

 

[Gunnar]

OT:  I think we should preserve Infanteer and Dare's discussion as an example of how to hold a civilized discussion with someone who's obviously wrong.    I'm not going to say who that is right now tho. >

 

[TCBF]

"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. "

- They also helped the Wahabbis seize power in Arabia.  Sometimes, you guess right.  Sometimes, you guess wrong.

Tom

 

[Infanteer]

My dispute with the terminology was about the London attacks. Thanks.

Doesn't answer my question - are you saying this is unrelated to anything happening in the rest of the world right now, because my terminology was aimed at that implying the opposite.

Interestingly enough, these attackers did not fight soldiers, did not (knowingly, as of yet) announce their goals. We do not know what their interests are, we assume they are Islamic in nature. We don't know what branch or offshoot.

Well, judging by the events of the last 3-5 years, I think it should be pretty obvious on who, what, and why these guys are all about - unless the PIRA pulled a fast one on all of us.

I don't know of any soldiers that have blown up civilian trains for the sake of blowing up civilians.

Here is two of them:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759659400/qid=1120775748/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5278873-7828656

Worked for us, didn't it?

Streets of the middle east ablaze.. OK. That's a bit dramatic, don't you think?

Ok, a bit dramatic - but I wouldn't say it is Green Acres either.

No. We are *NOT* in a total war. Not even close. If we were our economy would be converted to war production and we would be conscripting or recruiting in MUCH higher numbers.

The war is total because it is global in nature and we are all legitimate targets.  Just as we will reach into Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or Chechnya to hit the enemy, they will also reach into Madrid, London, and New York to hit us.

One thing is for certain, this isn't a "Cabinet War".

Many attacks have been stopped in London. Cells disrupted and arrested. That is called progress.

It appears to me that attacks around the world have been escalating since the early 1990's.  If there is progress (aside from a few tactical successes every now and then), please point it out.

Yeah. Japan. Jihad has nothing on Bushido. Yeah. It takes time.

As I said above, the fact that the Japanese broke it down on their own with Meiji for 70 odd years combined with the fact that you have ethnic homogenity makes it far more workable there than it does in places we are today.

No, the 10% are the ones that are at war with the west purely because of Iraq. Or because of military bases.

And your positive about this - so most people screaming "Down With America" are really protesting short skirts and Playstations?

People can say that walking my dog is terrorism. That doesn't make it true. People can say that my cat is a dog. That doesn't make it true. Terrorism is defined. It's real. We *are* basing our actions on defeating terrorism. It IS winnable and needed. It is not open ended. We don't declare war on strategic bombardment because the people who have declared war on US have not this capability and because we don't enjoy killing innocent people or having innocent people killed. They do have the ability to bring in bombs and hurt the unprotected. We have to stop that.

I remember writing a paper on terrorism, and the first problem I had was the defintion.

Taken from dictionary.com

ter ·ror ·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Pretty loose if I say so myself.  Heck, half the people around these forums apply this to the US invasion of Iraq.  Certainly, Canada's invasion of Kosovo could be written up as terrorism, since we bombed Belgrade into submission first.  As I said earlier, the State organs of the USSR would be terrorists (should we throw all the old KGB apparachiks in Gitmo as well?).  How about guerilla's? Terrorists or freedom fighters?  Israel's own creation is surrounded by the actions of violent zionist groups.  As well, I'm sure the Natives of North America would easily point out that the British, American, and Canadian governments have committed acts of terrorism against their societies in the past.

That's about as open-ended as it gets.

I'm sticking to my guns with the term "Islamic Insurgency".   It defines who the enemy is, what he wants, and where we can aim to defeat him.  Much of what I understand leads me to draw real links between dusty tribesmen fighting in the Suleman range of Afghanistan, the Iraqi in the streets of Fallujah, the stubborn hillman in Chechnya, and the attackers of 9/11, Bali, Madrid and now London.  These aren't isolated incidents, they aren't the work of madmen or criminals, and they aren't purely based upon random acts of violence.

The Insurgency is a loose network, not a monolith.  But the message of hatred against us is strong enough that these many groups of people from across Southern Asia and Africa seem willing to take a bit of time from killing themselves to direct their actions onto us.  They believe many things, and support many different goals, but as long as men like Osama bin Laden trumpet that we are the cause for their spiritual doom, they will take the chance to stick us in the eye and drive us away if they can.

If I was ME, and the Americans missed a cruise missile that hit my house. I'm sure they would apologize (as they do) and I would be mad at the individuals who made the error, but I'm not about to go on Jihad because of it.

The wedding remark is to show how fighting in people's backyards can bring them into the conflict, whether we wanted them there or not.  Next time your wedding gets leveled, come back and tell me how you feel.

I have a few more arabic words for you, since you like that one. Look up dhimmi, jizyah and taquiyya. Maybe you'll catch a gleen of why others in the middle east aren't too pleased at the theocracy and why we all fall for the lies over here.

Hmm, two for rules for non-believers living in Islamic countries and one for hiding ones motives.  And this has what to do with the question at hand?

As long as you say it politely. I still love you Infanteer.

Ok, well at least we got that sorted out.... :blotto:

They also helped the Wahabbis seize power in Arabia.  Sometimes, you guess right.  Sometimes, you guess wrong.

Ain't that the truth - ah well, what the hell can you do, eh?

 

[Infanteer]

Since this thread seems to have turned into a discussion on the general conflict, I'll return to what I said in my original post:

Al Qaeda has stuck to six points on where it feels it is justified calling a defensive Jihad against the West:

1) Support for Israel

2) The Presence of Western troops in dar al-Islam

3) The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan

4) Acquiescence to the persecution of Muslims by states like China (Xinjiang), India (Kashmir), and Russia (Chechnya)

5) Western hand in taking the petroleum resources in the Middle East

6) Support for apostate regimes in the Middle East that do not govern according to the Word of God (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc).

Notice the underlined emphasis.   Now, look what else happened today in the world:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4660909.stm

Al Qaeda in Iraq (the Jordanian Zarqawi's gang) execute the Egyptian envoy in Iraq - reason given; for being an apostate.   This jives with issue number 6.

This is the link I'm trying to point out when I go on about Insurgency.   In the same day, Al Qaeda in Europe kills British civilians in London while Al Qaeda in Iraq kills an Egyptian diplomat in Iraq.   Why would an organization, if it was one of terrorists dedicated to destroying the West and all it stands for, be wasting their time with a diplomat from another Arab country?  Hard to answer, probably because "terrorists dedicated to destroying the West" doesn't completely fit the bill.

I would venture that these events occured because of the link between them, the link of the Insurgency which pursues fighting the West based upon the six reasons listed above.   I'm willing to bet that these two organizations had no communication or knowledge of eachothers actions, but the fact that they are being driven by what they perceive to be a legitimate casus belli (which Al Qaeda is trumpeting to the Islamic world) should indicate again that the conflict we are seeing is more then a simple gamut of terrorist attacks on the West driven by madmen.

 

[Brad Sallows]

insurgency: the quality or state of being insurgent; specifically : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency

I dunno; they seem sort of belligerent, organized, and desirous of (Islamic) revolution.  If you wish to cast it as conflict, then with respect to operations in the nations of the middle east, I call it Islamic Revolt.  With respect to operations in Europe and North America, I call it Islamic Invasion.

 

[Slim]

Winston Churchill said:
"The best argument agains democracey is a five-minute conversation with the average voter!"

The days of fat, dumb and happy are over...

Time to act. :mg:......................................................... :skull:

There is no specific threat to Canadians, but we have to be prepared."

-Anne McLellan, minister of public safety

Pull your head out of your A$$!

 

[a_majoor]

Is It a War, or Isn't It?
The London bombings and different approaches to terror.

Unfortunately, points like these are best made when terror strikes and the collective public mind is focused. So it is worth pausing today to consider that British law and government have many features that critics both here and in the "international community" contend the United States should adopt. It's times like these when such claims appear most starkly dubious.

England has a domestic intelligence service, MI-5, which some keep insisting makes for superior homeland security compared with our system because it can single-mindedly focus on intelligence collection and analysis. In contrast, our FBI does both counterintelligence and traditional law enforcement. But for all the talk about the supposed efficiencies of specialization and study, good intelligence, at bottom, is a matter of squeezing bad people for information. That is a fact â ” like it or not. The FBI, of course, is far from perfect, but our system â ” when it is working properly â ” more easily allows the threat or reality of prosecution for crimes to induce suspects to cooperate and provide vital intelligence.

The Brits, moreover, adhere to the 1977 "Protocol I" to the Geneva Conventions which provides additional protections for terrorists at the expense of civilian populations. As David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote in an important 2004 article ("Leashing the Dogs of War") in The National Interest, Protocol I:

  " eliminates the requirement of government sanction for lawful combatant status, and the rules requiring uniforms and the open carriage of arms are relaxed. In this regard, under Protocol I, irregular forces need to produce their arms and identifying badges only immediately before launching an attack, and can only be targeted themselves while preparing for an attack or attacking. At all other times, Protocol I requires irregulars to be treated as civilians, who can be arrested, but not targeted. Obviously, these changes bestow a dramatic advantage on the hit-and-run tactics favored by guerrillas, and seriously handicap regular armed forces."

The U.S. rejected Protocol I during the Reagan administration, precisely because it would abet terrorists. Nevertheless, as Rivkin and Casey elaborated, the fact that the U.S. regards al Qaeda terrorists as unlawful enemy combatants, rather than criminal defendants with constitutional rights or POWs with Geneva protections,

  " has opened a rift with America's European allies, many of which act as if Protocol I applies to the United States, even without its consent. Some in Europe have actually questioned their governments' right to transfer individual Al-Qaeda and Taliban members to the United States, and British units operating in Afghanistan in 2001-02 evidently feared capturing Osama bin Laden, since they might not have been able to turn him over to American forces. Indeed, this problem persists in Iraq, and is magnified by another quandary â ” the British, because of the combination of domestic legislation, Protocol I strictures and EU obligations, are apparently unable to utilize any form of military tribunals to prosecute and punish either unlawful Iraqi combatants or those lawful Iraqi combatants that have committed war crimes. This situation has greatly complicated the Coalition's ability to deter attacks on its forces in Iraq."

Not only do the Brits display a curious legal and military deference to terrorists' choice of barbaric tactics. They are also in the vanguard pushing toward legitimizing those tactics politically â ” even now toying with the idea of recognizing and negotiating with Ham as and Hezbollah. As our government nervously watches developments in the Middle East â ” where the Palestinian Authority is poised to invite Hamas into its governing coalition â ” atrocities like the ones in London today should remind us that the moral clarity of the Bush Doctrine (you are either with us, or with the terrorists) is dependent on a steadfast rejection of all who practice or promote the slaughter of innocent civilians to achieve political ends.

Further, the British revile our Guantanamo Bay detentions of captured enemy combatants, to the point of insisting, with success, that British prisoners (some of whom were among the worst terrorists held in Gitmo) be returned to England, where most were promptly released into the population.

And, when parliament enacted a tough antiterrorism law, the House of Lords threw out the provisions permitting national-security detentions. Why? The Law Lords one-sidedly ruled that detaining terrorists without trial violated European human-rights standards.

Of course, detaining enemy operatives until hostilities are over is not simply acceptable under the time-honored laws of war; it is common sense not to release militants so they can kill more of your soldiers and civilians. Too often, in Britain and throughout Europe, the humans whose rights are the subject of obsessive concern are the ones doing the killing rather than the ones doing the dying.

Amid the carnage today, Home Secretary Charles Clarke is talking about the people who carried out "these terrible criminal acts." That's an understandable reaction â ” and we shouldn't quibble too much over a choice of words by people who have been stellar allies, who are in the middle of a rescue effort, and who are unsure the bombing has actually stopped. But it is worth repeating that what happened today is not mere crime.

This is war. It can't sensibly be separated from Bali or Mombassa or Istanbul or Madrid or Baghdad or Virginia or lower Manhattan â ” or any of the other places where the enemy has attacked.

The only security â ” and an imperfect security it is â ” is to acknowledge that this is a war and fight it like a one. Prime Minister Blair has been a staunch ally after 9/11, but many in his country, and throughout Europe, have not grasped what we are up against.

â ” Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507071247.asp

 

[Zartan]

Insurgent: citizen or occupant of a conquered country fighting the foreign nation(s) that conquered it.
Terrorist: citizen or occupant of one nation who goes to a foreign country and harms its people while lacking a mutual declaration of war.
Rebel: a person fighting against their own government, people, or the authority above them.
- my definitions of the preceding things.

A truly terrible day. My radio begins to spout the news as the alarm strikes the 9:00, and the first thing I hear is "Terrorists have attacked London". However, one has to give the Brits credit; they sure can take stress well. I hope they can take down these guys just aswell. On a third note: USA 2001, Spain 2003, UK 2005 - two years apart, and each country is or was involved in Iraq (one has to give exemption to the US on this, though). Perhaps Iraq is more important than most people would like to believe. If this has any relevance to the terrorist's plans, perhaps Italy is next...

P.S. Jack Layton should get a clue. Anne McClellan should get a lesser clue (really, is it that hard to notice?).

 

[CH1]

Well for my 2 cents,  These thugs are nothing but a bunch of COWARDS, no matter what their bible says.  Any low life that deliberately targets civvies, women, & children deserve no better than what they give.  If these useless bags of skin, want respect than fight the military face to face!

As far as I'm concerned, it is the time to take the war & dump it not on their door steps, but right in their laps, up front & personal!  They say eye for eye, then fine, let's start the same type of tactics.  Maybe then after a good taste of their own bitter medicine, will they slither back to the bottom of the cess pool they crawled out of!

And if ppl think I'm PO'd, they are right.  I for 1 am ready to go after these slugs in their ball park but on my terms.  No surrender & no prisoners, & NO MEDIA.  Just eradicate these poor excuses for humans.  

Cheers

 

[Roy Harding]

Well for my 2 cents,  These thugs are nothing but a bunch of COWARDS, no matter what their bible says.  Any low life that deliberately targets civvies, women, & children deserve no better than what they give.  If these useless bags of skin, want respect than fight the military face to face!

As far as I'm concerned, it is the time to take the war & dump it not on their door steps, but right in their laps, up front & personal!  They say eye for eye, then fine, let's start the same type of tactics.  Maybe then after a good taste of their own bitter medicine, will they slither back to the bottom of the cess pool they crawled out of!

And if ppl think I'm PO'd, they are right.  I for 1 am ready to go after these slugs in their ball park but on my terms.  No surrender & no prisoners, & NO MEDIA.  Just eradicate these poor excuses for humans. 

Cheers

I agree with the sentiment, BUT:

Where are "their door steps"?  Let alone "their laps"??  For that matter, where's "their ball park"??

How do you take the fight to them when you don't know where they are?

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out?

That might work, but who are the "all" that we're going to kill?

I understand your frustration - I've lived it, and I understand that your posting was an expression of that frustration, but "mount up" and "charge" don't work if you don't know who/what/where you're charging at/to.

I don't know what the answer is - I wish I did - but with all due respect I think your suggestion is an example of what the answer isn't.

We (the West) need to stop REacting, think this thing through, find out WHO these people are, WHERE they are located, and THEN begin acting.  So far, we haven't done a very good job of this - we've made a lot of noise, blown up a lot of stuff and people, and spread these idiots (and their philosophy) to the four winds.

Just my .02.

 

[CH1]

Well Retired CC, I agree.  The preface to any action is intel.  So what's the hold up?  Every body has their heads stuck up their wazoos.  It's time to L&L.  Enough of the niceties, & other crap.  If we are to win the day, it's time to quit pussy footin & get into the game.  The only way to put out this fire is to use fire.  And nobody get me wrong, all muslims are not what these wackos are.  Most are like the rest of us, being drug into the quagmire kicking & screaming!

The issue at hand is how much more "collateral damage" (I hate those words), are we going to tolerate on either side.

But the fact is if we want to avoid this escalating into all out full fledged war, we have to step up the black side of things. Get the intel networks going in high gear & hit Osama with a few good blows below the belt, & I'll bet he & his bottom feeding slime  will wither up & Die.

As a side note, Retired CC, I think we know each other, & come from basically the same plane of thought.  Think we may have even discussed this, once or twice back in Calgary & Edmtn.

Cheers & beers.

 

[McG]

Infanteer,
I'll give some parting thoughts on terminology, not to change any opinions, but so that we all understand eachother while reading through these posts.   I don't think your linking of the word â Å“terrorismâ ? with a â Å“law enforcing approachâ ? develops a clear picture.   I also do not think that it is appropriate to refer to this as an insurgency.   We are at war.   There are insurgency battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.   However, the battles with terrorism are omnipresent.   Our enemy is a mix of soldiers, terrorists, guerrillas, and their leaders.

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?

Soldiers should not be rebuilding schools.   Civilian government agencies and NGOs should be doing that.   Soldiers should be ensuring the security and stability for this to happen.   Further, â Å“reconstructionâ ? must go beyond physical infrastructure.   It must include rebuilding the government institutions to run the country.   It must include training police, military, medical, government, and other essential pers.   It must include DDR.   It must include re-activating the country's economy.   None of this is a military task (and so it should not be given to the military).   However, without reconstruction the country will slip back into the state it was at prior to military action and our soldiers will have to re-fight the battle.  Worse, without reconstruction the country can degenerate while we are still there and prolong the need to keep our troops on the ground.

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

If we do not make the effort toward reconstruction, the terrorist ideologist will find it much easier to recruit disillusioned citizens to support the insurgency battles or join in terrorist attacks abroad.

 

[Shec]

I think we all agree that like him or not you have to respect the rank if not the man.  And today our Prime Minister told it like it is:

Our collective freedom has come under assault today by those who would use violence and murder to force extremism upon the world. We must and we will stand against these terrorists. And we will do so together. And we will prevail.

 

The way I figure it, by attacking when our leaders were together at the G8 summit Al Queda may have made the same mistake that the Arabs made when they attacked while many Israeli reservists were in their Synagogues on Yom Kippur 1973 --  being altogether in one spot facilitated the  mobilization of a concerted and united response to a common threat.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not holding my breath and packing my kit...

I've heard a lot of rhetoric from the PM before too.

I'm all for reconstruction - after I had crawled all over their hills and killed every last one of them...

Personally I think we just found a great role for reservists - PRT security forces - while the regs play hunter killer.

 

[Infanteer]

Yargh, you moved my soapbox, McG....

Infanteer,
I'll give some parting thoughts on terminology, not to change any opinions, but so that we all understand eachother while reading through these posts.

Ok, and I'll try and clarify my terminology a little better so it doesn't look like I'm pulling this stuff out of my hat....

I don't think your linking of the word â Å“terrorismâ ? with a â Å“law enforcing approachâ ? develops a clear picture.

The problem I have with title of "terrorism", "terrorists" and "War on Terror" is that it automatically brings up the very loose definition of terrorism that I talked about above.  As well, terrorism has, due to its historical connotations that associate it with anarchists, 5th columinst communists, and state-sponsered groups like Abu Nidal, a legal implication.  We put wanted posters up of these men, convict them in absentia of crimes in our State, and say that the Rule of Law will deal with them.   This carries the connotation that it is a criminal act of murder or assault, rather than one of war (where combatants are legitimately inflicting casulties upon the enemy).  Terrorism implies individuals who act against civilians - what we are seeing (IMHO) is a movement; one of those who view themselves as soldiers and view the victims as legitimate targets of Jihad.  Putting them into a paradigm of terrorist criminals may handicap our efforts to defeat them by giving us an incomplete understanding of who the enemy is.   Sure, this may run contrary to our existing defintion of "war" and "soldiers", but we all know that the Geneva Convention, the Hague Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare don't extend far beyond the borders of the signatories.   Let's not pound their square peg into our round hole.

All I've looked at regarding the current situation leads me to believe that there is nothing criminal about it; they've declared war, announced Jihad, and issued Fatwas.  We can denigrate them, label them fascists, and attempt to poke holes in their authority to do so, but, as subsequent events have shown, it should be as real as Germany crossing into Poland or Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.  Here it is, plain as light to see, from Osama bin Laden himself:

"So the case is easy, America will not be able to leave this ordeal unless it leaves the Arabian Peninsula, and stops its involvement in Palestine, and in all the Islamic World.  If we give this equation to any child in an American school, he will easily solve it within a second.  But, according to Bush's actions the equation won't be solved until the swords fall on their heads, with the permission of Allah....

We renew our pledge to Allah, our promise to the Ummah, and our threat to the Americans and Jews that they shall remain restless, shall not feel at ease, and shall not dream of security until they take their hands off our Ummah and stop their aggression against us and their support for our enemies.  And soon will the unjust assailants know what vicissitudes their affairs will take."

This was said as the war in Afghanistan began - similar statements were stated before (see his Fatwa of 1996) and similar things have been said since then.

So, they have declared war upon us, and we have attempted to follow suit - thus, to me, we have left the confines of Civilian Law which is applied to terrorist acts against civilians.

I also do not think that it is appropriate to refer to this as an insurgency.   We are at war.   There are insurgency battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, etc.   However, the battles with terrorism are omnipresent.   Our enemy is a mix of soldiers, terrorists, guerrillas, and their leaders.

Okay - I use the term "Insurgency" to desribe what we are at war with because it seems to work a hell of alot better than "Terrorism".  As I (hopefully) made clear before, I don't believe that all these groups, factions, and organizations that oppose us are monolithic.  They have their own beliefs, their own goals, and their own history.  Mixed into the conflict thoughout dar al-Islam (I use this term as it effectively describes an area that transcends regional and continental tags) are tribal interests, Shia/Sunni battles, rabid fundamentalism, Chechens, Bosnians and Kashmiris with a bone to pick, Palestinians (with their own gig), and a whack of pissed off people who have Westerners marching through their backyard.  Some hate us for who we are (westerners), and some hate us for what we do (support regimes, etc) - but they all seem to hate us, and that is good enough.

They aren't united - infact, alot of them like to waste each other when they're not fighting us - and they aren't coordinated.  What ties them togeather is the seemingly common dislike for the West.  This is where Al Qaeda has come to the fore - for the first time since the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has had a "Banner" to follow.  Not all follow it, nor agree with it - but many do; we can't wish away this phenomenon to the fringe of Islam.  This Al Qaeda banner has espoused the message that the West is undertaken a new crusade to subjugate or destory Islam.  There is credibility to this claim, given the current envionement:

"There is a perception in the Muslim world - which bin Laden has fed - that the Christian West is always ready to use economic coercion and military force if proselytizing does not work, or does not work quickly.  The latter is an intense irritant in the Islamic world and is, as Professor Samuel Huntington noted, grounded in fact: from 1980 to 1995 "the United States engaged in seventeen military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed at Muslims.  No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization."  Tough economic sanctions have been simultaneously enforced by the West against several Muslim states.  As noted, bin Laden has been outspoken in condemning the Crusaders' eagerness to put sanctions on Sudan, Iraq, and Libya; to tolerate prolonged military aggression against Muslim Bosnians, Somalis, Kashmiris, and Kosovars; and to conspire to divide Muslim states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.  In voicing these views, bin Laden is more virulent than most Muslims, but he is not the lone voice."

Anonymous, Through Our Enemies' Eyes; pg 244.

Thus, this is where the banner is planted.  It is an Insurgency of those who have heeded the call to the Banner to undertake Jihad.  Whatever their motivation and whatever tribal/ethnic/political/relgious group they come from, they find common cause to fight us.  It is an Insurgency within the Ummah, which they believe is the undivided House of Submission.  Again, not all have a common view of how things should be run within this house, but they sure do agree with the fact that the West shouldn't be in it - at all.  Because we are in it (see the Huntington reference above; Israel, Oil, Iraq, Afghanistan), the Insurgency has now spilled into our streets.   They are rising up to fight what they view are wrongs - Crusaders, Infidels, Zionists, and Apostates - and they will fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Bali, London, and New York to do so.   Again, denigrate or pick apart this assertion by the enemy, but it will do nothing to deter them from carrying out their actions.

Sure there are, as you mention, "terrorists" in the mix - after all, I'd venture that this Insurgency inherited groups like Hizballah - but terrorism is but one tactic, and is only a subset of what these people truely are, insurgents who want to drive the West and the Apostate regimes out of the Ummah.

Now, this is what I've derived from looking at a few sources; it is their view and it is what drives them.  It may not be based on a completely accurate interpretation of events, but the perception is important because it is what drives them to war.  We may agree or disagree that the general claims of the Insurgency are valid, but we must recognize that they are there.

Soldiers should not be rebuilding schools.   Civilian government agencies and NGOs should be doing that.   Soldiers should be ensuring the security and stability for this to happen.

Okay - we don't build the schools, but we use our manpower in defending the guys who stack the bricks, so we are essentially part of the school-building team.  Shoudl we be part of this team?  I'm not sure, but I bring up the Peters' quote in my sigline ""Do not waste an inordinate amount of effort to win unwinnable hearts and minds.  Convince hostile populations through victory."  Should we be worrying about winning the unwinnable (which, from the historical record, Afghanistan seems to be) or killing the enemy?

We weren't tieing down our soldiers with reconstruction tasks in the Moro River Valley or along the Rhine while Germany was still putting up the ability to resist us.  We waited until after we shattered them and then got on with the game (with most of the soldiers being sent back to their homes).  As Kevin points out, "I'm all for reconstruction - after I had crawled all over their hills and killed every last one of them..."

Further, â Å“reconstructionâ ? must go beyond physical infrastructure.   It must include rebuilding the government institutions to run the country.   It must include training police, military, medical, government, and other essential pers.   It must include DDR.   It must include re-activating the country's economy.   None of this is a military task (and so it should not be given to the military).   However, without reconstruction the country will slip back into the state it was at prior to military action and our soldiers will have to re-fight the battle.   Worse, without reconstruction the country can degenerate while we are still there and prolong the need to keep our troops on the ground.

Ok - I understand that.  But is this neccesarily productive?  Is "rebuilding the government institutions" really effective when it means putting Hamid Karzai in charge despite the fact that he never fought and is guarded by American bodyguards?  The Afghans fought the Soviets for 13 years, labelling them "atheists" and "invaders" and sending them back to Moscow with their tails between their legs.  Now, a different Western army has invaded Afghanistan and we have replaced Karmal with Karzai.  Irregardless of our motives, we most likely appear to be the same to them; foreigners, and infidel ones at that.  If it was Canada, I wouldn't care if the troops in my backyard were French or Chinese; I'd be pissed.

History seems to point to the fact that you can't keep the Pashtuns down and out, you can't institute a strong government in Kabul (unless it is ruthless like the Iron Amir), you can't play them for fools (they see Karzai just as they saw the Soviets man), that they will distrust strangers who march into their land, and that they will keep on fighting, whether it be Alexander, Persia, India, Britain, the Soviets, us, our themselves.

Anyways, I could be wrong - but history has a tendency to bite us in the ass when we think we make progress.

If we do not make the effort toward reconstruction, the terrorist ideologist will find it much easier to recruit disillusioned citizens to support the insurgency battles or join in terrorist attacks abroad.

Here is where I do have a problem - you point to a "terrorist ideology"; but if what I advocated above (Islamic Insurgency based upon Jihad against trasgression of dar al-Islam by infidels and apostates) has any foundation, then the "terrorist ideology" doesn't exist.  I'm not sure we are being attacked because they are poor.  The Afghans lived in a slagheap before, and they were our Allies because they were killing atheist Soviets.

Now I'm trying to figure out what has really changed there to all the sudden turn them from "hardy Mujihadeen" into "terrorist Islamofascists who are bred on hate."  Is there a point in the last 10 years that Afghanistan, due to being war-ravaged, suddenly became susceptable to "terrorist ideology" (which I would like someone to define, since I think you could find people who could lump Nazism, Envioronmentalism, and the Manifest Destiny as such).  Perhaps they haven't fallen to this ill - perhaps they are fighting us because the Soviets left and then we came in.

As for Iraq, Britney Spears made it quite clear on another thread that "reconstructing" Iraq has meant that American and Coalition soldiers are lying in a cockpit that is increasingly radicalizing - Iraq was articface and was due for a civil war; I don't know how reconstrution is going to help anything there, except for driving many to the Insurgency because they abhor the fact that Western soldiers stalk the streets of Najaf, Fallujah, and Baghdad (Iraq is probably the second holiest place in Islam, so perhaps that is a given).

Oh well, just playing some thoughts out.  They may be incorrect, off the mark, or just plain wrong, but I think the questions that raise these points are very valid and worth looking at.  Falling back on the simple rhetoric that seems to fly around (not blaming anyone here) leaves us open to underestimation of the enemy and bad strategy.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[a_majoor]

I am coming to the conclusion that there is a fairly sophisticated American Strategy for the prosecution of GWOT, and it is based around the precepts of "4th Generation Warfare". This sort of activity works at a different speed from warfare as we know it, so we haven't made the connections yet, nor seen the results.

I know Infanteer isn't a big fan of what is known as Regime change, and doing regime change at the point of a bayonet isn't a practical proposition in the long run, but what is driving our opponents can be summed up as "dysfunctional societies". The rulers of these societies are attempting to deflect the population's anger against poverty and lack of opportunity and hope against the "Jews" and the "Crusaders"; which isn't too difficult given the great and obvious disparity between their standards of living and our own. Since most people lack a basic understanding of economics, it is also easy to suggest the real reason for poverty and dispair is that the "Jews" and "Crusaders" are stealing from the Middle East. It wasn't too long ago that the same paradigm was used to suggest the reason for the decline in the standards of living in Africa, and indeed there are enough voters in Canada who believe in zero sum economics to elect 19 NDP members of parliament.

Changing these societies so they no longer threaten us can be done by a "March to the Sea", humiliating and discrediting the current rulers and ideologies, but this requires a vast application of military power and political will. It also leaves room for doubt that the new regimes are really "legitimate". What I see happening is the use of Iraq as a lever to encourage and support events like the "Cedar Revolution" all across the Middle East. With tyranny overthrown through a sort of self help project, the Americans can go in and stabilize the popular and legitimate new regimes through trade and economic development, rather than by establishing a military Proconsul.

This story shows cracks appearing in the Ba'athist regime of Syria proper, which was already humiliated by being forced out of Lebanon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/02/international/middleeast/02kurds.html?ei=5090&en=36d147f2d8c96d10&ex=1277956800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Similar demonstrations happen all the time in Iran, and it is hard to imagine that pressure is not building within Saudi Arabia as well. Should these movements overthrow the current regimes, Jihadis will be cut off from state funding and popular support will wane as people unleash their energies towards improving their own lives.

American military power is close at hand in Iraq to encourage the freedom movements, deter the existing regimes and provide a direct means of intervening should all else fail. The failure of alternatives like the EU's diplomacy efforts in Iran can be contrasted to American success, further weakening competition against American diplomacy and economic efforts in the region. This is a brilliant economy of force operation at the grand strategic level if it works as planned.

 

[TCBF]

Infanteer, your above post made more sense than all of the tripe in the papers these day. 

Fourth Generation Warfare - Can you lose a war without never having known - or admitted - that you were actually AT war?

Yup.

And it's not like the other side hasn't been telling us, either.  The lies are ours, and we've been telling them to ourselves. 

Tom

 

[McG]

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.

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.

The war is total because it is global in nature and we are all legitimate targets.  Just as we will reach into Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or Chechnya to hit the enemy, they will also reach into Madrid, London, and New York to hit us.

I agree that the enemy has taken a total war approach to this conflict.  However, are you arguing we should employ the tactics of total war and the "do the whole village" mentality that comes with it?

Russia has been fighting the same war in Chenchnya, but using a posture much closer to total war than ours.  They have not been blessed with any greater success. 

We weren't tieing down our soldiers with reconstruction tasks in the Moro River Valley or along the Rhine while Germany was still putting up the ability to resist us.

After the Nazi war machine was destroyed, the allies began reconstruction concurrent with fighting insurgency battles against the groups that were not prepared to give up.  We are at that point in Iraq and Afghanistan where the enemy's conventional military ability has been crushed and the population wants to get back to living.  Now is the time to begin reconstructing their ability to run their own country.

Is "rebuilding the government institutions" really effective when it means putting Hamid Karzai in charge despite the fact that he never fought and is guarded by American bodyguards?  The Afghans fought the Soviets for 13 years, labelling them "atheists" and "invaders" and sending them back to Moscow with their tails between their legs.  Now, a different Western army has invaded Afghanistan and we have replaced Karmal with Karzai.

This is why we are including elections in the reconstruction process.  The citizens of Afghanistan (and of Iraq) will be able to look at their leaders and know that they selected them.

we most likely appear to be the same to them; foreigners

We must be seen as different from previous occupiers by making our intentions to leave clearly known.

Now I'm trying to figure out what has really changed there to all the sudden turn them from "hardy Mujihadeen" into "terrorist Islamofascists who are bred on hate."

In Afghanistan, I tend to think that most are insurgents fighting that battle.  However, those that are terrorists likely were terrorists even when fighting our enemy (Soviet Russia).

More to follow . . . 

 

[Dare]

Doesn't answer my question - are you saying this is unrelated to anything happening in the rest of the world right now, because my terminology was aimed at that implying the opposite.

Alright. I'll explain this to you again. The people who commited the London attacks are terrorists. They are not insurgents. There are insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. You want to meld all definitions into one. Which doesnt surprise me given what I saw Scheuer say on CBC today. His owl-eyed theories just do not hold water. His suggestion is that we completely disengage from the middle east and let Israel hang out to dry. Then we should stop buying middle east oil and let the innocent civilians suffer even more (given their entire economies run on oil money and it's certain the leaders wouldn't feel hurt by it any). Then we can work out a *cease-fire* with the Ummah. Won't that be great! Then we'll have peace.

What utter nonsense. Yes, let's let the tyrants take over their own areas, mop up Israel, let millions of people continue to live under oppressive governments, then they will be all squared up with us. Only fitting he was questioned after George Galloway. Retreat and fortify is a losers strategy in this age.

Ok, a bit dramatic - but I wouldn't say it is Green Acres either.

The war is total because it is global in nature and we are all legitimate targets.  Just as we will reach into Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or Chechnya to hit the enemy, they will also reach into Madrid, London, and New York to hit us.

That's not the definition of Total War. There were wars all over the world in the Cold War as well, but it wasn't Total War either. Why do you insist on changing definitions?

One thing is for certain, this isn't a "Cabinet War".

It appears to me that attacks around the world have been escalating since the early 1990's.  If there is progress (aside from a few tactical successes every now and then), please point it out.

If you measure progress by numbers of attacks, then you've really got to readjust your metrics. Progress should be measured in the amount of freedom loving people who are gaining power in the former bastians of intolerance and tyranny. Measure the exposure of people who are truely against us. Measure the growing awareness to the danger these people pose for everyone. Just because Terrorists finally hit off a plan (not surprising given how many radicals are in and around London) does not mean "Oh Gosh! We failed! Let's pack it up, boys!"  It means we're succeeding. Out of the millions of Muslims in the UK and after several decades, they can still only manage to recruit enough people for one attack such as this. Obviously disproving the idea that if you're Muslim you have to be anti-American or you have to not support the War against Terrorism. There are many Muslims who are fighting these nuts, and now we're in their backyard teaching them how to do it effectively.

As I said above, the fact that the Japanese broke it down on their own with Meiji for 70 odd years combined with the fact that you have ethnic homogenity makes it far more workable there than it does in places we are today.

The idea that the Japanese converted themselves to democracy on their own is nonsense, I'm afraid. I'm sorry. It's just nonsense. Without the threat of American force, Japan would never surrendered, and without continued pressure and occupation, Japan would not be the democracy it is today. All you have to do is watch (even current day) Japanese politics.

And your positive about this - so most people screaming "Down With America" are really protesting short skirts and Playstations?

I did not distort your arguement. Please do not distort mine. 90% of these people screaming Down With America are doing so because they know that the US is the major driver behind the removal of tyranny. They know that their theocratic tyranny can not survive in a democratic environment. They are not as simple minded as you and Scheuer seem to think. They understand the broader implications of democracy. It will bring tolerance to minorities and give them say, which ultimately will undo much of what these radicals can dish out. Yes, they want their theocratic tyranny to conquer the globe, but one thing at a time. First they have to feign as the innocent victim and weaken their attackers so they can build an even larger power base.

I remember writing a paper on terrorism, and the first problem I had was the defintion.

Taken from dictionary.com

ter ·ror ·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Pretty loose if I say so myself.  Heck, half the people around these forums apply this to the US invasion of Iraq.  Certainly, Canada's invasion of Kosovo could be written up as terrorism, since we bombed Belgrade into submission first.  As I said earlier, the State organs of the USSR would be terrorists (should we throw all the old KGB apparachiks in Gitmo as well?).  How about guerilla's? Terrorists or freedom fighters?  Israel's own creation is surrounded by the actions of violent zionist groups.  As well, I'm sure the Natives of North America would easily point out that the British, American, and Canadian governments have committed acts of terrorism against their societies in the past.

There was never (with the exception of the USSR (which we took rather seriously, as I'm sure you know)) any threat of a single terrorist blowing up an entire city in previous times.
And thus, the War on Terrorism is created. Which is that, we must defeat groups that expouse this idea before they do it, for obvious reasons. So you might not like the idea that we are going to war against terrorism or that we have chosen that term, but we have, are and will continue to do so in the future.

That's about as open-ended as it gets.

I'm sticking to my guns with the term "Islamic Insurgency".  It defines who the enemy is, what he wants, and where we can aim to defeat him.  Much of what I understand leads me to draw real links between dusty tribesmen fighting in the Suleman range of Afghanistan, the Iraqi in the streets of Fallujah, the stubborn hillman in Chechnya, and the attackers of 9/11, Bali, Madrid and now London.  These aren't isolated incidents, they aren't the work of madmen or criminals, and they aren't purely based upon random acts of violence.

Obviously they are not isolated. That does not mean you can paint them all with the same inaccurate label. It may be more simple to do so, but your (Scheuer's) label is not accurate.

The wedding remark is to show how fighting in people's backyards can bring them into the conflict, whether we wanted them there or not.  Next time your wedding gets leveled, come back and tell me how you feel.

Will do. A Jewish friend of mine had her taoist friend leveled yesterday. Interestingly enough, she does not want to kill random Arabs/Muslims/People. Imagine that.

Hmm, two for rules for non-believers living in Islamic countries and one for hiding ones motives.  And this has what to do with the question at hand?

Ah, so when you bring in the broader view it's required for understanding, but apparently my broadening does not matter? I assure you, *it matters*. Expecially as we are bringing Shar'ia into Canada. It matters a *whole lot*. It matters that there is no religious compulsion to Tell the Truth about their purpose. Hamas representatives can boldly deride Israel for any perceived notch in the Road map to Peace while at the same time they have no intention of Peace at all. Only cease-fires (at best). Which is another reason why Scheuer is completely wrong. The war is on, and has been on for some time. Not because we want it to be, but because there are only cease-fires.