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

[Dare]

From a man who better understands the enemy.

DOBBS: Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, has asked all of the cabinet to say very little. He may have said it even somewhat more strongly for fear of offending Londoners, the British.

But the fact is, you have been straightforward, in the days you and I talked after 9/11. You have been straightforward now in talking about the common bond as victims of terrorism. What do you think should be the response now?

NETANYAHU: Well, I don't think we have to give any advice to the British government, because prime minister Blair and his government, my colleague Gordon Brown, they know what to do and are handling the situation well.

I think the larger issue is the challenge we all face. I don't mean just Britain; the United States; Spain before this in the Madrid bombings; Israel, obviously; Russia. We have all been in the gun- sights of Islamic terrorism.

And, if fact, we have to understand that this is not a partial attack on America's allies in Iraq. After all, America was attacked before Iraq. In fact, America went to Iraq after it was attacked on September 11th. The problem we face is a worldwide radical movement, a splinter movement that distorts many of the messages of Islam and seeks to roll back the clock of history 1,000 years. It's mad. It's a fantasy ideology. But nonetheless it has a method.

The method is the application of terror to inspire fear among its victims, who are the West. The West they want to destroy, hobble, eventually get rid of our way of life, our free, liberal way of life. And the most important thing is to refuse...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: You know, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the aftermath of what the British and we all now will call 7/7, a lot of talk about bringing people to justice, a lot of talk about carrying out life as if it were normal. It also causes one -- in the pain we all suffer when innocents are attacks in this cowardly, barbaric way -- to say: Let's go kill these people who would do us such harm and destroy our way of life.

The fact of the matter is the world is not having immense success in dealing with this radical, Islamist terror. And there has to be a prescription, an approach that bright, intelligent leaders around the world can come up with to deal with this issue, this movement, splinter or otherwise.

NETANYAHU: Well, I agree. And I think there are three things you have to do.

The first is to refuse to surrender to fear and to muster the courage and the resolve to fight back. That's absolutely necessary.

The second thing is to understand that it's not what we do, but what we are that causes offense to these mad radicals: the fact that we breathe in our free society; the fact that women have rights; the fact that children can flip on a TV channel. That is something anathema to people who want to roll us back 1,000 years.

Understand: We are not guilty; they are guilty.

The third is to reverse the odds. It is not we who should cower in fear; it is they who should run for their lives. They means the organizations, the terror organizations, and also the regimes that give them sustenance. There are regimes left who are doing it, both actively supporting them and also ideologically and financially supporting them -- sometimes directly; sometimes passively. I think you have to circumscribe the locus of action.

Here is the reason why you have to do these three things -- if you don't do it, then what I have been saying to you and so many years before to you and to others, I have been saying now for over two decades for close to a quarter of a century -- the danger of international terrorism is you will have terrorists acquiring the weapons of mass destruction.

And when they do, these particular terrorists, especially radical Islamic terrorists, will use them. Bin Laden would have used them. And the studio that you are talking in, the city you are talking from would not exist. We have to stop them before they destroy us. The war is still on.

DOBBS: Obviously and hopefully, that war will turn decisively soon.

Thank you very much, Benjamin Netanyahu.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/08/ldt.01.html

 

[Infanteer]

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.

I never said I advocated his strategies.  Mr Scheuer's explanation of the cause seems quite compelling to me, as well as his description of the conflict, but his solution does not strike me as the best COA.  He swings fully into the "What We Do" camp, where Western policies are the only causus belli.  This is something I don't believe to be true - they certainly are a key to contributing to the reason for conflict, but they aren't the only reason.  Sure many hate us for what we do, many hate us for being Westerners, and many don't know much at all about the West except for the fact that we are on their turf.

As I said in a previous debate, Who we are is what we do.  We support Israel because it is a democratic state surrounded by people that hate them.  We pay attention to the oil because we have a capitalist economy that is fueled by petroleum.  We can't back out on these, so we must pound acceptance into the enemy.

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?

I think it is pretty damn close to one - lets see; we have attacks around the globe aimed at our military, economic, and political infrastructure (of which 9/11 was but a single incident), we have the militaries of Western nations constantly deployed forward (to the point where the United States is straining), Reserves are being called up, we have the scope of our civil landscape being changed by legislation triggered by the War (things like the Patriot Act in the US), we have Jordanians, Egyptians, Libyans, Somalis, Chechens, Afghans, and Indonesians fighting us at various parts of the globe, and the Airlines won't let me have nailclippers or a plastic butter knife on board the aircraft.  It is one that seems to fit into Huntington's Clash paradigm, where the triggers are civilizational in nature.

Considering that the lives of every person in the West is somehow affected in many different ways by this war, I don't see this as anything but Total in nature.

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.

Readjust the metrics?  WTF is that?

Give me some sort of tangible sign of "freedom loving people" who are removing the "bastions of intolerance and tyranny" - hundreds of Iraqi offing each other every day doesn't seem to play that out.  Show me metric that there is a sign of dwindling opposition against us - because casualty lists don't seem to be bearing that notion out.  These fluffy notions do no good in telling us if we are succeeding, because we see just as much violence and conflict (if not more) as we did in the last decade.

Wilsonian rhetoric isn't making your argument very palatable when you consider the fact that we are still being attacked in the hearts of our cities.

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.

I didn't see PRT teams and occupation forces arrive with Perry's ships.  Sure, the fingers were in the pie (a la Tom Cruise and The Last Samurai   8)), but this was done with a willing Japanese regime that was backed by the Emperor.  The military hijacked the state in the time leading up to WWII, but that tradition of Japanese democracy was there, and it was something that we could exploit after we pounded them to dust (which MacArthur did).  This isn't something I see in either Afghanistan or Iraq - willing players (especially elites) who are happy to take Western help to build a democratic order.

As well, Japan was ethnically homogeneous, which made things easier by order of magnitude.  It is hard to get people to work towards the notion of a national government when their loyalty is to their faith/tribe/family/faction and when they are busy fighting you in the streets everyday. 

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.

90% protest America, cheer in the streets of the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks, wear Osama bin Laden shirts, listen to his tapes, and burn US Flags because they are opposed to anything that will drive away tyranny?

You accuse me of deeming them simple-minded, and then you paint a good portion of the Middle East as promoters of tyranny that are only need us in the West to show them how to be "freedom loving people who are gaining power in the former bastians of intolerance and tyranny".

I'm not even going to bother commenting on that one.

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.

Ok, I'm going to play "Step out of my Western Armchair" for a minute and put myself into the moccasins of some Cherokee in the 19th century.  I've just been deliberately given blankets from a smallpox ward as aid from the US Government - my village gets sick and most die off.  That would be pretty close to the same impact you described above, as the actions of a few destroy my entire society.  Maybe the "War on Terrorism" was being fought by the Sioux at Little Bighorn?

Terrorism is a tactic.  You are right, the lethality of modern weapons means that individuals can condense the magnitude of destructiveness into a smaller piece of time and space, but the ideas behind the attacks are nothing new.  It does not define the enemy we fight or his reasons for fighting, just as it didn't on the American West, in Tzarist Russia in the 1880's, or in Germany in 1945 (I'm sure the Jews can view Kristallnacht as a terrorist act).

If (or when) a WMD goes off in one of our cities, it will be no different than Tamerlane building pyramids of skulls at the outskirts of Baghdad.  It is not some "new war" that sprung out of the lethality of modern weapons.

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.

Ok, so you do agree that they are not isolated.  Then how does the "War on Terror" serve as the accurate label.  How does the "War on Terror" link the London Bombers, Chechens bombing Moscow and attacking Russian soldiers in Ossetia, insurgents fighting Americans in Fallujah, Libyans (who swore themselves to Osama bin Laden) marauding against the regime in Libya, Saudis attacking oil workers, Pashtun tribesman launching rockets into Kabul, and Indonesians blowing up a nightclub in Bali?  I latched onto "Islamic Insurgency" as it seems to encompass all these disparate interests which are directed outward at those the "Banner" has pointed to as the enemy.

Of course, you could just call them all terrorists and pop in Team America: World Police - but does that do any justice to why they fight us?

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.

Ok, now repeat for 20 years, and we'll see how that works out.  You don't even need to do that - look at the reaction of many in the West on chat rooms following attacks on our city: "Get some", "Fallujah delenda est", "Make them Pay".

We are all human, and all prone to the same reactions - the power of human emotions, hiding deep in the lower brain, are much stronger than the rational part - the tendency to lash out when the perception of threat is a strong one, and I feel that is what many Muslims are doing when they attack us.

Is it that, or are they all terrorists who are fighting against the spread of liberty and peace?

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.

Ok - because they don't live like us and they are attacking us, this makes them liars?  Everything they say is a clever ruse?

You're going to have to prove to me that all the enemies are big liars and not one of them says what they mean.  I put that quote up from Osama bin-Laden earlier, which seems to be quite coherent and straight forward, but I guess I should throw that in the garbage because it is the work of a cabal who rely on a convention of their Faith to be pathological liars.

 

[Infanteer]

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.

Not neccesarily - if a good portion of these people are fighting us because they do believe us to be marauding Crusaders bent on destroying Islam (or simply invaders period), then the effort should be aimed at convincing them we're not.   I'm sure that there is an equal amount of carrot and stick involved, but I'm not sure planting our flag, propping up interim governments, and saying "here is democracy!" is the best carrot (or stick?).

Russia takes the wrong approach with the "wipe them off the face of the Earth" approach.   It only breeds more resistence.   However, history has shown that Carthaginian Peace works at time, if applied properly.   Look at all the Great Captains in history, they are their because they were victorious by ruthlessly destroying the enemies will to resist.   We must figure out how to send Sherman in to finish off the enemy.   The solution is a tough one, one that demands a clear and resolute approach - hopefully we will find the answer, properly defining the conflict is the first step (IMHO).

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.

We fought insurgents in Germany?   I thought we were busy squaring off with the Soviets by then.

Is destroying conventional military ability the end of the war and the beginning of reconstruction?   The Insurgency (I'm still going to call it that) isn't based upon a conventional Western foe.

Look at Afghanistan - the Soviets dispersed the Afghans in days, driving there tanks in and saying "Zdravstvuite, Comrades!"   13 years later, the Afghans were still fighting and any hope for a Soviet backed Communist government fell.   Does our current situation not seem to be a replay of this?

Look at Iraq - we say "the War is Over!", smash the Republican Guard, and put Saddam in jail.   But Saddam was a bit player in the Insurgency anyways.   Since then, we've had more battles, more casulties (civilian and military) and more conflict then we did in the conventional war.

If this is "reconstruction" phase, then I'd hate to see "Insurection" or "Unrest".

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.

As I said earlier, we have elections because 8 centuries of political evolution made them acceptable to us.   The people of Iraq were a complex civlization while our ancestors were still living in thatch and worshipping trees - in 6,000 years, we see their first liberal democratic election now and expect that they will take it at face value?   We see elected leaders, and then we see them getting offed in the streets of Iraq on a daily basis.

The fact that we pulled off elections is feat enough, but I am doubting the long-run impact that they will have.   As I said earlier, history has the tendency to bite us in the ass when we thing we are making progress.

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

Well, I'm sure our intentions are clearly known, and I believe that they are well-meaning, but it doesn't change the fact that they are foreign.   I've never been invaded and occupied, so I don't know the feeling, but I'm sure I'd be pissed.  I think it is hard to discern between a helping hand and a jackboot when it comes from a soldier who is there to fight.  I'm pretty sure that, to many, they aren't differentiating between "good occupiers" and "bad occupiers".

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).

I'm not sure I follow this one.   What distinguishes and Afghan insurgent fighting the Soviets and and Afghan terrorist fighting the Soviets?

More to follow . . .

Standing by.    :warstory:

 

[paracowboy]

We fought insurgents in Germany?  I thought we were busy squaring off with the Soviets by then.

yup. Insurgency continued in Germany for 5 years, 10 in Japan.

 

[Infanteer]

yup. Insurgency continued in Germany for 5 years, 10 in Japan.

Really, can I get a source?   I ask because I have never ran into this myself.   Are we talking about bands of Werewolves trying to drive the Allies out of occupied Germany, or just rounding up some SS guys hiding out somewhere.

I've never heard of a military effort to destroy an insurgency in Japan or Germany in the 5-10 years following WWII - I've heard of supporting Greece, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Blockade, the Korean War and the onset of the Cold War in general, but never anything of fighting against throwbacks from WWII who were pissed at occupation.

PS: I googled "German Insurgency and found this (although it is just some blogspot:

On the German "insurgency," there really wasn't much of one--or at least one comparable to the insurgency in Iraq. A 2003 study by the Rand Corporation reports: "U.S. officials anticipated and planned to deal with significant residual German resistance following the surrender of its armed forces. Yet no resistance of consequence emerged then or at any time thereafter." There have been more than 1,300 Americans killed in Iraq after 5/1/03. How many Americans did the German resitance kill after 5/45? I'm not aware of any, but I'm not an expert on the matter. Perhaps some enterprising or expert reader can come up with an answer.

I couldn't find anything at all on a Postwar Japanese insurgency.

 

[paracowboy]

Really, can I get a source?

oh, man! Most of my books are buried in the basement and packed. It's gonna be a while for me to dig them out, and it's gonna tick off Niner. I'll get back to you.

Now, don't go thinking either insurgency compares to what the Coalition Forces are dealing with in Iraq, right now. It was fairly low key. Mostly fanatics here and there, Werewolves & die-hard SS in Germany, over-the-top Kamikaze types in the land of the rising sun. Anyway, I'll go poke around and get some references.

 

[paracowboy]

ok, I quit! I'm going cross-eyed, there are books everywhere, and Niner is seriously annoyed. I can't find the references I wanted. Ignore my post, as I can't find anything more concrete than you could dig up on a few quick google searches. As compensation, I will buy the first round if you get out to Edmonton, and I hereby officially announce my Dumbass status.

 

[CH1]

For all the good intentions & posts, the fact still remains, that we are engaged in war.  The symantics are simply in the names & methodology.  Osama & his cronies have figured out that they can hit when & where they want.  They are bringing the war from their front yard to ours, piece by piece.  The problem we have, is simply we are playing by a rule book that is different than theirs.  We (the West), are not ready or willing to pour the resources into finding a small group(s) & fighting the same way they do.

We are still locked into the idea of skirmish lines.  The Americans were tossed out of Vietnam because of this "old doctrine" vs Guerilla warfare.  The Russians had their Vietnam in Afghanistan.

I use "old doctrine & skirmish lines" in a very loose sense.

This is Guerilla warfare. It is the chosen doctrine of the enemy, on how they prosecute this war.  We have set the "skirmish lines" in Iraq & A'stan. We have to put more resources into finding  the loose threads that lead to the snake's head.  Not an easy task at best.

I feel for all the innocents that have been caught up in this mess, on both sides.  They are the ones that pay the greatest price & have the most to lose.

We went into Iraq & have destroyed the infrastructure,  what we rebuild, the enemy destroys. The Russians did it in A'stan. On & on ad nauseum through history.

We are slow to rebuild, in part to economics, and to a major extent due to our lack of control of the region.  Plain & simple, we have to fight a Guerilla war with the same or better force.  We have to fight this war by the same rules sans "collateral damage"

Cheers

 

[Dare]

I never said I advocated his strategies.  Mr Scheuer's explanation of the cause seems quite compelling to me, as well as his description of the conflict, but his solution does not strike me as the best COA.  He swings fully into the "What We Do" camp, where Western policies are the only causus belli.  This is something I don't believe to be true - they certainly are a key to contributing to the reason for conflict, but they aren't the only reason.  Sure many hate us for what we do, many hate us for being Westerners, and many don't know much at all about the West except for the fact that we are on their turf.

As I said in a previous debate, Who we are is what we do.  We support Israel because it is a democratic state surrounded by people that hate them.  We pay attention to the oil because we have a capitalist economy that is fueled by petroleum.  We can't back out on these, so we must pound acceptance into the enemy.

I think the definition of "who we are" and "what we do" are improper. As it is often referrenced it would be better defined as our domestic policies (who we are) and foreign policies (what we do to "them"). That is how most use the term. The difference being (what we do): We should feed them more, or educate them more, or not go into Islamic countries, etc. Or (who we are), countries with relatively immoral behavior, with tolerance and human rights. Really it's a debate wether they are attacking us because of what we have done in the middle east or for our liberal social environment. We know where Scheuer stands, we know where I stand. Do you think it is both, then?

I think it is pretty darn close to one - lets see; we have attacks around the globe aimed at our military, economic, and political infrastructure (of which 9/11 was but a single incident), we have the militaries of Western nations constantly deployed forward (to the point where the United States is straining), Reserves are being called up, we have the scope of our civil landscape being changed by legislation triggered by the War (things like the Patriot Act in the US), we have Jordanians, Egyptians, Libyans, Somalis, Chechens, Afghans, and Indonesians fighting us at various parts of the globe, and the Airlines won't let me have nailclippers or a plastic butter knife on board the aircraft.  It is one that seems to fit into Huntington's Clash paradigm, where the triggers are civilizational in nature.

The Clash of Civilizations is a Total War. The War on Terrorism is not yet even close to a Total War. It is low to mid level armed conflict and occupation. If we were fighting a Total War with the military power we have now, we would be losing.

Considering that the lives of every person in the West is somehow affected in many different ways by this war, I don't see this as anything but Total in nature.

Total War refers to the level of combat is being used. It is not Total War.

Readjust the metrics?  WTF is that?

Give me some sort of tangible sign of "freedom loving people" who are removing the "bastions of intolerance and tyranny" - hundreds of Iraqi offing each other every day doesn't seem to play that out.  Show me metric that there is a sign of dwindling opposition against us - because casualty lists don't seem to be bearing that notion out.  These fluffy notions do no good in telling us if we are succeeding, because we see just as much violence and conflict (if not more) as we did in the last decade.

Is the democratic voting in Iraq and Afghanistan a fluffy notion? Or how about in Lebanon? Democratic reforms all over the middle east?

Wilsonian rhetoric isn't making your argument very palatable when you consider the fact that we are still being attacked in the hearts of our cities.

I'm not trying to sweet talk you, Infanteer. I know we're being attacked, I've expected to be attacked. We have been warned we would be attacked. That does not mean we're losing.

I didn't see PRT teams and occupation forces arrive with Perry's ships.  Sure, the fingers were in the pie (a la Tom Cruise and The Last Samurai  8)), but this was done with a willing Japanese regime that was backed by the Emperor.  The military hijacked the state in the time leading up to WWII, but that tradition of Japanese democracy was there, and it was something that we could exploit after we pounded them to dust (which MacArthur did).  This isn't something I see in either Afghanistan or Iraq - willing players (especially elites) who are happy to take Western help to build a democratic order.

The Shinto tradition of the leader being an unquestioned God was there, right up til even after formal surrender. The willing players in Afghanistan and Iraq are the voters and the lines of recruits.

As well, Japan was ethnically homogeneous, which made things easier by order of magnitude.  It is hard to get people to work towards the notion of a national government when their loyalty is to their faith/tribe/family/faction and when they are busy fighting you in the streets everyday. 

If your enemy is divided against itself, then it's a lot easier than if it is united against you.

90% protest America, cheer in the streets of the Middle East after the 9/11 attacks, wear Osama bin Laden shirts, listen to his tapes, and burn US Flags because they are opposed to anything that will drive away tyranny?

That's right. They want their theocratic tyranny to take hold.

You accuse me of deeming them simple-minded, and then you paint a good portion of the Middle East as promoters of tyranny that are only need us in the West to show them how to be "freedom loving people who are gaining power in the former bastians of intolerance and tyranny".

A good portion of the Middle East wears bin Laden tshirts? If they are wearing Bin Laden tshirts, listening to his tapes, burning US flags and cheered in the streets after 9/11, I think it's fair to say that 90% of them are interested in the Salifasts (theocratic authoritarian tyranny) winning.

Ok, I'm going to play "Step out of my Western Armchair" for a minute and put myself into the moccasins of some Cherokee in the 19th century.  I've just been deliberately given blankets from a smallpox ward as aid from the US Government - my village gets sick and most die off.  That would be pretty close to the same impact you described above, as the actions of a few destroy my entire society.  Maybe the "War on Terrorism" was being fought by the Sioux at Little Bighorn?

Perhaps the *British* Government was indeed responsible for doing just that (as that is when the smallpox epidemic occured for the Cherokee.)

Terrorism is a tactic.  You are right, the lethality of modern weapons means that individuals can condense the magnitude of destructiveness into a smaller piece of time and space, but the ideas behind the attacks are nothing new.  It does not define the enemy we fight or his reasons for fighting, just as it didn't on the American West, in Tzarist Russia in the 1880's, or in Germany in 1945 (I'm sure the Jews can view Kristallnacht as a terrorist act).

I know the ideas behind the attacks are nothing new. The reason we do not define the enemy in that manner is because *anyone* can be a terrorist. There are domestic terrorists of every stripe. Primarily we are focused on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but that is not the only ideology bent on our destruction.

If (or when) a WMD goes off in one of our cities, it will be no different than Tamerlane building pyramids of skulls at the outskirts of Baghdad.  It is not some "new war" that sprung out of the lethality of modern weapons.

Sure it is a new war. We can not wait for them to hit us, now. We can not guarentee they value their own life enough to try them civilly. What was generally a civil problem before (murder of domestic civilians) is now a military matter. That is new. Disrespecting a states right to protect terrorists is new.

Ok, so you do agree that they are not isolated.  Then how does the "War on Terror" serve as the accurate label.  How does the "War on Terror" link the London Bombers, Chechens bombing Moscow and attacking Russian soldiers in Ossetia, insurgents fighting Americans in Fallujah, Libyans (who swore themselves to Osama bin Laden) marauding against the regime in Libya, Saudis attacking oil workers, Pashtun tribesman launching rockets into Kabul, and Indonesians blowing up a nightclub in Bali?  I latched onto "Islamic Insurgency" as it seems to encompass all these disparate interests which are directed outward at those the "Banner" has pointed to as the enemy.

All of the above have committed Acts of Terrorism, in their own generalized description. That does not mean there are not "legitimate" insurgents in these places.

Of course, you could just call them all terrorists and pop in Team America: World Police - but does that do any justice to why they fight us?

How many radicals have you talked to Infanteer? Oh yes, Iraq pisses them off, but most of them were pissed off before Iraq. They have a long list of things that they are pissed off about. None of them are reconcilable. It doesn't matter how many times or how many ways we apologize or try to compensate. They are committed to their cause. We might be able to convert some or perhaps (so far unlikely) a sizable group of them, but most of them we will have to imprison or kill.

Ok, now repeat for 20 years, and we'll see how that works out.  You don't even need to do that - look at the reaction of many in the West on chat rooms following attacks on our city: "Get some", "Fallujah delenda est", "Make them Pay".

Yeah, go into the Islamic chat rooms. Or even better, go to the Jewish chat rooms and listen to the Islamic radicals spout off nonstop with death threats. I know I have. It's always an interesting conversation. Of course there is to be a natural reaction to an attack, but how many of those in those "West" chatrooms formed private mass murder terrorist cells in the middle east? Don't even try to tell me a PMC is the same thing.

We are all human, and all prone to the same reactions - the power of human emotions, hiding deep in the lower brain, are much stronger than the rational part - the tendency to lash out when the perception of threat is a strong one, and I feel that is what many Muslims are doing when they attack us.

Really, have you seen what the radical Muslims are doing when they attack us? They are exuberantly shouting ALLAH IS GREATER, over and over. Sure they perceive us to be a threat, and to the theocratic tyrannies, we are.

Is it that, or are they all terrorists who are fighting against the spread of liberty and peace?

They have a different idea of "peace". If living under a tyranny is peace (and to many it is), and liberty means being freed of the laws of man (supposedly), then no, they are not fighting the spread of liberty and peace. Fortunately, I do not find it enjoyable to entertain their distorted views of the world and disagree wholeheartedly.

Ok - because they don't live like us and they are attacking us, this makes them liars?  Everything they say is a clever ruse?

You're going to have to prove to me that all the enemies are big liars and not one of them says what they mean.  I put that quote up from Osama bin-Laden earlier, which seems to be quite coherent and straight forward, but I guess I should throw that in the garbage because it is the work of a cabal who rely on a convention of their Faith to be pathological liars.

Your sarcasm is correct. Certainly, if we do everything Bin Laden says, there still will not be peace. Which I'm sure you can agree with. Therefore, it IS designed entirely to trick people into believing they are reasonable in their expectations and combat operations. Which they are not. That is a major reason the ignorant portion of the far left support these people, they TRUELY believe that if we just left them alone, no harm would come to us. They want us to retreat into an inferior position and allow them to take a more solid root where they are. Democratization puts a large bend in their plans. Whatever assists it's spread assaults their base. We can't afford to leave them alone. I'm pleased you do not agree 100% with Scheuer, but his causation is still flawed.

 

[Infanteer]

I think the definition of "who we are" and "what we do" are improper. As it is often referrenced it would be better defined as our domestic policies (who we are) and foreign policies (what we do to "them"). That is how most use the term. The difference being (what we do): We should feed them more, or educate them more, or not go into Islamic countries, etc. Or (who we are), countries with relatively immoral behavior, with tolerance and human rights. Really it's a debate wether they are attacking us because of what we have done in the middle east or for our liberal social environment. We know where Scheuer stands, we know where I stand. Do you think it is both, then?

It's chicken and egg really - some will be the chicken and some will be the egg.   I'm sure some people fight us because of our domestic policies, some will fight us because they hate Pepsi and walkmans, some will fight us because of our foreign policies and some will fight us because we are in their back yard and we just knocked down their market.   Some will start with "I hate America and thus their policies are bad" and some will say "I really hate these actions so America is bad".   We should avoid painting with a broad brush and saying that within the minds of the billion or so people within Islamic countries that the attitudes and degree of enmity (or sympathy) are all the same.

The Clash of Civilizations is a Total War. The War on Terrorism is not yet even close to a Total War. It is low to mid level armed conflict and occupation. If we were fighting a Total War with the military power we have now, we would be losing.

Total War refers to the level of combat is being used. It is not Total War.

I guess it is a matter of semantics and we'll have to agree to disagree - as I said, I consider the war total in nature because it pervades every aspect of the societies involved and the solution for us is going to demand efforts across the board (from economics to policies to military action to legislation to attitudes etc, etc).

Is the democratic voting in Iraq and Afghanistan a fluffy notion? Or how about in Lebanon? Democratic reforms all over the middle east?

We'll see how well the voting does, because voting is underpinned by such things as civil society and established democratic principles; something absent in there areas.   If voting is supposed to be a sign of progress, then I guess we'll give Mugabe a slap on the back for bringing Zimbabwe into the 21st century.   Sure, we made sure they were free and fair in the places we occupied, but I'm not interested in how we handle elections, I'm interested in how they do.

Lebanon is promising, but I remember reading how Chomsky held it up as the model polyglot society in the 1970s in his attacks on Israel - Lebanon in the 1980's sure deflated that notion.   I really enjoyed watching the "Cedar Revolution" (especially to see all the gorgeous Lebanese protesters   :blotto, but we must remember the huge pro-Syria rally (estimated at 200,000) that also took to the streets.

Finally, what are these "democratic reforms all over the middle east" that you refer to?

The Shinto tradition of the leader being an unquestioned God was there, right up til even after formal surrender.

Yes, and it helped that the Chrysanthemum throne backed the Meiji Restoration and the Westernization that came along with that - I don't see Allah being as generous for us.

The willing players in Afghanistan and Iraq are the voters and the lines of recruits.

The willing players are the voters and the lines of recruits, but there is also the people who attack Western Forces everyday, kill politicians, and drive bombs into recruiting line-ups.   I worry that the will to struggle for such a foreign and alien concept as democracy will wilt under the threat of sectarian violence.   The 13 Colonies would not wilt because they had convention dating back to Runnymede - no such thing exists in Afghanistan or Iraq.

If your enemy is divided against itself, then it's a lot easier than if it is united against you.

???

So reconstruction is easier if the population of the country is divided against itself, promoting sectarian violence?   Judging from the fact that Al Qaeda's strength among the Kurds grew after the invasion and that both Shia and Sunni will fight the Coalition in the streets of Iraq (Najaf, Fallujah), I would say that there is some degree of agreement and unity in the goals of Insurgent forces in Iraq.

I have no doubt the same will happen in Afghanistan if tribal politics turns it head and bites us in the ass.

That's right. They want their theocratic tyranny to take hold.

A good portion of the Middle East wears bin Laden tshirts? If they are wearing Bin Laden tshirts, listening to his tapes, burning US flags and cheered in the streets after 9/11, I think it's fair to say that 90% of them are interested in the Salafists (theocratic authoritarian tyranny) winning.

I'm not to sure that all those Palestinians are dedicated Salafists.   How about Shia's in Iran and Iraq (there is enough anti-Western sentiment from them) - you're not trying to tell me that they are actually Sunni's in disguise?   Painting with the big brush again.

Perhaps the *British* Government was indeed responsible for doing just that (as that is when the smallpox epidemic occured for the Cherokee.)

Whatever, change the name to some Plains Indian tribe - the point remains the same.

I know the ideas behind the attacks are nothing new. The reason we do not define the enemy in that manner is because *anyone* can be a terrorist. There are domestic terrorists of every stripe. Primarily we are focused on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but that is not the only ideology bent on our destruction.

Okay, so we West invaded Iraq to target Islamic Fundamentalist Islam?   Support for the AQ aside, the Taliban was fundamentalist, but I don't recall them taking claim for many attacks on us.   Again, the connotations of "War on Terror" are too narrow, is insufficient at providing a proper viewpoint of the full spectrum of the conflict, and (again) paints with a broad brush.

Sure it is a new war. We can not wait for them to hit us, now. We can not guarentee they value their own life enough to try them civilly. What was generally a civil problem before (murder of domestic civilians) is now a military matter. That is new. Disrespecting a states right to protect terrorists is new.

New to whom, new to what?

All of the above have committed Acts of Terrorism, in their own generalized description. That does not mean there are not "legitimate" insurgents in these places.

Most (if not all) of the above have also made conventional attacks on military targets, conducted propaganda campaigns, and undertaken economic ventures to shore up their infrastructure - terrorism is simply one tactic that these people will use to see their ends met; it is neither the chief tactic nor the defining one.

How many radicals have you talked to Infanteer? Oh yes, Iraq pisses them off, but most of them were pissed off before Iraq. They have a long list of things that they are pissed off about. None of them are reconcilable. It doesn't matter how many times or how many ways we apologize or try to compensate. They are committed to their cause. We might be able to convert some or perhaps (so far unlikely) a sizable group of them, but most of them we will have to imprison or kill.

Did we have to imprison or kill most German's or Japanese to achieve victory over them?   No.

The enemy is not a lunatic fringe, and seems to be, from the firm and unswerving level of attacks and opposition against us in the last 15 years, a substantial portion of the Muslim world - at least, this is what the Pew Research Center finds:

In the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up. Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

They must of interviewed all the Salafists, eh?

So, what you seem to suggest is that there is no way to undercut the enemies will to fight (of which addressing specific grievances is one way) and that the entire Islamic world is one big Masada?

Yeah, go into the Islamic chat rooms. Or even better, go to the Jewish chat rooms and listen to the Islamic radicals spout off nonstop with death threats. I know I have. It's always an interesting conversation. Of course there is to be a natural reaction to an attack, but how many of those in those "West" chatrooms formed private mass murder terrorist cells in the middle east? Don't even try to tell me a PMC is the same thing.

As much as applaud you for your trips to the front lines of cyberspace, I'm not sure how we can take the words of a few internet blusterers like you and I to represent the motives and motivations of the enemy.

Why you mention PMC's is beyond me.

Really, have you seen what the radical Muslims are doing when they attack us? They are exuberantly shouting ALLAH IS GREATER, over and over. Sure they perceive us to be a threat, and to the theocratic tyrannies, we are.

Allahu Akbar is a very common term amongst Muslims - I heard Bosnian Muslims use it for many things.   As well, it is used for many different occasions - a Tajik tribal leader could use it to express gratitude for the great dinner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_Akbar

I'm sensing that you've got your cultural blinders on good and tight - you seem to take a long-standing practice in the Muslim world as a sign of terrorist extremism.

They have a different idea of "peace". If living under a tyranny is peace (and to many it is), and liberty means being freed of the laws of man (supposedly), then no, they are not fighting the spread of liberty and peace. Fortunately, I do not find it enjoyable to entertain their distorted views of the world and disagree wholeheartedly.

Distorted views of the world...hmm, I see - the Black and White thing again.   Looks like this one is going to come to a close pretty quick; no point in me trying to undercut your pillar of moral superiority.

Tell me, if there was only two people in the world - you and one of the enemy - who would be right?

Your sarcasm is correct. Certainly, if we do everything Bin Laden says, there still will not be peace. Which I'm sure you can agree with. Therefore, it IS designed entirely to trick people into believing they are reasonable in their expectations and combat operations. Which they are not. That is a major reason the ignorant portion of the far left support these people, they TRUELY believe that if we just left them alone, no harm would come to us. They want us to retreat into an inferior position and allow them to take a more solid root where they are. Democratization puts a large bend in their plans. Whatever assists it's spread assaults their base. We can't afford to leave them alone. I'm pleased you do not agree 100% with Scheuer, but his causation is still flawed.

You never answered my question - are all of our enemies relying on a convention of their Faith to be pathological liars?   None of them ever say what they mean?

 

[McG]

One benefit of reconstruction - we can gradually turn over more of the responsibility for fighting insurgency to the nation itself (Iraq, Aghanistan, or other).

300 Italian soldiers to be pulled out of Iraq
The Associated Press
(Printed in the Edmonton Journal)
Saturday, July 09, 2005

GLENEAGLES, Scotland -- Italy plans to begin withdrawing 300 troops from Iraq in September as Iraqi security forces become increasingly capable of securing the territory, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi said friday.

Iraq "must come to a point where it must guarantee its own security," the Italian leader said at the end of the G-8 summit in Scotland.  ...

However, Berlusconi added any withdrawal plans would depend on security conditions on the ground and could change. He said the partial pullout would not compromise security for the remaining Italian troops or the zone of southern Iraq under their control.  ...

Berlusconi sent 3,000 troops to Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The contingent is based in the southern Iraqi city Nasiriyah.

...

 

[Edward Campbell]

The weekend papers are chock-a-block with analyses of the London bombings and I expect that all the usual suspects from the commentariat will be on the Sunday TV political round-ups.

A few observations, if I may, from the cheap seats:

"¢ Rick Hiller and his minions are looking pretty prescient - Canada Command, with its stated focus on domestic operations and security, is looking like a smart move.  This matters because there is a constant power struggles in Ottawa for the attention and respect of the security secretariat in the Privy Council Office - DND, Foreign Affairs, RCMP and the new, somewhat cumbersome Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada are all competitors.  (By the way, I applaud this - as I have said before I do not favour the collectivization of intelligence as is being planned/implemented in the USA.)

"¢ Racial profiling is back on the front burner - there are reports that the security services reckon the miscreants were not home grown, locally 'run' British Muslims; some, especially the leaders, it is postulated, entered Britain over the past six months - probably on fake passports.  More focus - read: ethnically based - screening might have stopped or slowed them.

"¢ The Brits lowered their state of alert in part, at least, because there was no chatter - the radical Muslims in Britain (and on the European continent where GCHQ also intercepts civilian telecom traffic without the knowledge or approval of other governments) have stopped using their cell phones and e-mail.  (I seem to recall that we used to regard the imposition of radio silence as a sure sign of a coming move, of come sort.  The dog not barking as Sherlock Holmes might have observed,)  Some will question whether frightening the enemy away from public switched telecom was a good idea; other will counter than everything that makes live more complicated for the enemy is a smart move.

"¢ The CCTV cameras in London are likely to provide the Brits with real, solid leads re: whodunit.  There was no practical way for CCTV to have prevented the attacks but they may 'solve' them and provide good links to the enemy's structure - if the Brits stay smart and do not bother with the justice system.  The trick is to identify the bad guys and then seize them and use them as sources of information - they can be flushed into the North Sea when their utility reaches zero.  Watch for more and better electronic surveillance in Britain - explosive 'sniffers' all over the place, tens of thousands more CCTV cameras, periodic, pseudo-random X-ray checks of briefcases and shopping bags in some areas, and so on.

"¢ This may be just another day in an 'endless war' - some prognosticators believe that more and more Muslims (still a tiny minority) are buying into the idea that there can be Muslim global domination because neither East nor West is willing to endure a permanent state of terror in which all infidels are targets all the time.  For the folks who believe this, any and all counter-measures, other than abject surrender, are welcome because they will support the position that Muslims are the victims and their (violent) resistance is both just and noble.

"¢ There are 20+ million Muslims of North African, Middle Eastern and South-West Asian descent in Europe.  Only people of Black African descent have higher levels of unemployment in Europe.  No other group, including blacks, is less integrated into European society.  Youngish Muslim men in Europe are, in hugely disproportionate numbers, found in low paying, part time, low status jobs - that status is, I think (no data), just about the same here in Canada.  European (and Canadian) immigration regulations give special dispensations to religious leaders who are recruited from abroad because there are few (no?) Muslim (equivalent) divinity schools in Europe - these religious leaders (imans, sheiks, etc) are frequently radicals and they have little understanding of and less interest in the cultures of the European nations within which they will preach and teach.

"¢ The Canadian government's response to the US call for the 'willing' to join them in Iraq might have bought us some time.  Our new mission in Afghanistan will take Canadians into direct contact with the enemy - Canada will reappear on the target lists.  Thousands of Muslims in Canada will wonder out loud why 'we' are attacking and killing 'them' - except the CF will become 'they' and these (thousands of) mostly young Muslim men will identify as 'we' with Arabs, West Asians and North Africans - many of whom are, in fact, their cousins.

 

[bossi]

I'm going to pull up a chaise lounge today, some iced tea (the non-Long Island variant) and really enjoy reading this thread "cover to cover" ...

Agreeing with Monseigneur LeJoint's comments re: CanadaCom and regime change (as well as Monseigneur Majoor's reference to "4th Generation Warfare") ... I hark back to a mantra of "fight smarter, not harder" ...
In this context, when we can't fire bullets ... we can fire information ... while also denying ammo to the enemy (something the bombers did when they invoked EMCON in Britain ...).  It's nothing new, but ... sooner or later, everything old is new again ...

And so, for cross-reference purposes (since this thread will carry on separately from the 7/7 London transit bombing thread ...) I'd like to chime in, as fol:

Very well. then please inform us how we should discribe them in the future.
HAND.

Personally, I view the bombers as criminals who have murdered indiscriminately - there can be no honour in killing innocent civilians, and thus they are a disgrace to whatever cause they purport to serve.  I'd be tempted to agree with PM Blair's use of the term "barbarians", except that it would be an insult to the original Barbarians (footnote at bottom).

Moving on ... it's gratifying to see how Britain is swinging into retaliation mode - amongst other things, an aggressive Info Ops campaign ...  backed up by REAL TIME ops ... (Churchill said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" - thus, to defeat a terrorist it's necessary to not be terrified ... and, the best defence is a good offence ... especially when every man, woman and child gets onboard ...)

1.  "We're coming to get you."
2.  "The World is united against you." 
3.  "Did we mention that every pair of eyes in Britain, and our allies, are now looking for you ... ?"
4.  "Oh, by the way ... we're coming to get you."

1. 

No.10 [Downing Street] Operation FIGHBACK - A £2 BILLION counter-terror operation swung into action within minutes of the first explosion. ...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005310418,00.html

2. 

GLENEAGLES: The world's most powerful leaders united on Thursday to condemn the wave of bombings in London, saying they would not bow to terrorists ... British Prime Minister Tony Blair, summit host, insisted talks would continue despite what he described as `barbaric attacks'. ...

http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/08/stories/2005070806071600.htm

3. 

Britons urged to help find attackers
LONDONâ ”Police have called on Britons to be their "eyes and ears" in a hunt for bombers who killed more than 50 people, some of whom remain buried in the wreckage of an unstable and vermin-infested subway tunnel. ...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1120859414904&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

4. 

Extra troops for Afghan border 
(photo caption:  Pakistan already has 70,000 soldiers along the Afghan border)
Pakistan says it is deploying an additional 4,000 soldiers on its border with Afghanistan to prevent militants from moving across the frontier. ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4660441.stm


Barbarian footnote (I'm half Barbarian by ancestry, thus ... sort of a "Cliff Claven" commentary ...)

... Those who they came in contact with considered them uncivilized, and yet were fascinated by their strength, stamina, force of will, charisma, and versatility.  They were respected by those they befriended, and feared by those who opposed them.  Even within their own society, they fought amongst themselves, seeking supremacy of power and controllership of the lands they acquired. 

In Northern Europe they became known as the Teutons, Norse, Goths, and Celts, and within those tribes arose many sub-tribes.  Settling deep in the regions of Northern Europe, they were forgotten by the various civilizations to the South and East such as Greece, Assyria, Persia, and Egypt.  It was not until the end of the Bronze age and the onset of the Iron Age that the cultures would re-emerge, clashing with those civilizations fronting the Mediterranean Sea; Greece, and Rome. 

Reviled by the Greeks, and both respected and feared by the Romans, these people would time and again engage in battles against those civilizations.  Those of Teutony proved to be indomitable, and even the ones conquered by Rome did not remain under Roman rule for long.  Their fierce, warlike nature and coarse behaviors earned them the name "barbarians", meaning both "illiterates" and "wanderers".  ...

And, the latest headline (reminding us not to underestimate our enemy ...):

... The deadliest of Thursday's blasts, which took place far below King's Cross station on the Picadilly Line, has so far claimed 21 known dead, but that number is certain to climb because many bodies remain trapped in the wreckage there. ...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1120947011737&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Blasts occurred within seconds, police now say
Oakland Ross, staff reporter

LONDONâ ”Police and transit authorities have dramatically revised the chronology of the three blasts that hit trains on the London Underground on Thursday.

Initially, those explosions were thought to have occurred over a 26-minute span, from 8:51 until 9:17 in the morning.

Based on a closer examination of emergency reports and other data, officials now say the underground bombs went off within seconds of each other, at about 8:50 a.m.

"It was bang, bang, bang, very close together," Tim O'Toole, managing director of the London Underground, said yesterday.

The first explosion hit a train near Aldgate station, followed almost immediately by two more bombs, one at Edgware Rd. and a third at King's Cross.

A fourth explosion, which ripped the roof off a double-decker bus at Tavistock Square, killing 13, came nearly an hour later.

The death toll in the four bombings stands at 49, but is certain to rise.

The revised chronology of the blasts is important because it tends to bolster the likelihood that the bombs were detonated by electronic timing devices rather than being the work of suicide bombers.

"It might seem to move the probability toward a timing device," said Brian Paddick, Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner. "But we cannot rule out the possibility that people set these bombs off manually.

Last night, police evacuated large areas of downtown Birmingham, in what they described as "a precautionary measure" in response to an undisclosed security threat.

An estimated 20,000 people were ordered to leave the Broad St. entertainment district of Britain's second largest city, and motorists were prevented from entering the area.

The city's Chinatown area was also evacuated, involving about 10,000 people.

The alert, however, was not likely connected to the subway and bus bombings in London two days earlier, said Stuart Hyde, assistant chief constable of West Midlands Police.

"I want to make that pretty clear," he told a news conference.

The evacuation followed intelligence warning of a "substantial threat," Hyde said.

A controlled explosion â ” designed to disarm any explosive device â ” was carried out on a bus following a call from a member of the public, but officers concluded there was no explosive device.

London police also revealed yesterday that "high explosives" were used in the four blasts on Thursday, rather than "home-made" bombs, but they would not provide more specific information.

In all, about 700 people were wounded in the blasts, 65 of whom remain in hospital, 12 in critical condition. Approximately 25 other people are thought to be missing.

"You can have all the surveillance in the world, and you couldn't stop that happening," British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a radio interview yesterday. He praised the "inner resilience" of Londoners for their calm response to last week's attacks.

The deadliest of Thursday's blasts, which took place far below King's Cross station on the Picadilly Line, has so far claimed 21 known dead, but that number is certain to climb because many bodies remain trapped in the wreckage there.

Ian Blair, commissioner of the London police, said yesterday he does not believe the final death toll in the four blasts will rise above 100.

Civic authorities in London announced yesterday that two minutes of silence will be observed at noon local time this Thursday, in honour of the victims of last week's bombings.

Yesterday, a second Islamic group sought to take responsibility for the deadly attacks on central London, but it was not clear whether the claim could be taken seriously.

Calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade, the organization claimed on its website that it caused the London bombings, but the group is known to have made bogus claims in the past. It previously sought to take credit for the power blackouts that hit parts of the United States and Canada two years ago.

On its website, the group threatens further terrorist actions against "infidel London."

Earlier, a group calling itself the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda Jihad in Europe claimed responsibility for the blasts.

Police investigators also revealed yesterday that they have so far been unable to identify any of the 49 bodies so far recovered from the wreckage left by the four explosions.

"It is a very harrowing task," Detective Superintendent Jim Dickie said, referring to the recovery of the corpses. "Most of the victims have suffered intensive trauma, and by that I mean there are body parts as well as torsos."

Police and rescue workers continued to work in appalling conditions roughly 30 metres below King's Cross station, trying to remove more bodies from the wreckage.

"This is going to be a very long process," said Trotter of the British Transit Police. "The conditions are extremely difficult."

He said there was no natural ventilation in the cramped and rat-infested tunnel, one of the deepest in the London Underground system. "It's a slow, methodical, meticulous process," said Trotter.

While recovery teams laboured underground yesterday, crowds of Londoners gathered under partly cloudy skies at the King's Cross station, where they filed past a makeshift shrine set up outside the station. Hundreds of floral offerings and handwritten tributes have been placed outside the station in honour of the bomb victims.

"In loving memory of you all," said one. "They will not beat us."

With files from Associated Press

 

[Dare]

It's chicken and egg really - some will be the chicken and some will be the egg.  I'm sure some people fight us because of our domestic policies, some will fight us because they hate Pepsi and walkmans, some will fight us because of our foreign policies and some will fight us because we are in their back yard and we just knocked down their market.  Some will start with "I hate America and thus their policies are bad" and some will say "I really hate these actions so America is bad".  We should avoid painting with a broad brush and saying that within the minds of the billion or so people within Islamic countries that the attitudes and degree of enmity (or sympathy) are all the same.

I'll agree that it is somewhat paradoxical.

I guess it is a matter of semantics and we'll have to agree to disagree - as I said, I consider the war total in nature because it pervades every aspect of the societies involved and the solution for us is going to demand efforts across the board (from economics to policies to military action to legislation to attitudes etc, etc).

I understand why you consider it total war. It is not Total War. It has a wide spectrum, yes, but it is not all encompassing, as of yet.

We'll see how well the voting does, because voting is underpinned by such things as civil society and established democratic principles; something absent in there areas.  If voting is supposed to be a sign of progress, then I guess we'll give Mugabe a slap on the back for bringing Zimbabwe into the 21st century.  Sure, we made sure they were free and fair in the places we occupied, but I'm not interested in how we handle elections, I'm interested in how they do.

Well, that's if you want to consider what Mugabe held to be a real election rather than theatre.

Lebanon is promising, but I remember reading how Chomsky held it up as the model polyglot society in the 1970s in his attacks on Israel - Lebanon in the 1980's sure deflated that notion.  I really enjoyed watching the "Cedar Revolution" (especially to see all the gorgeous Lebanese protesters  :blotto, but we must remember the huge pro-Syria rally (estimated at 200,000) that also took to the streets.

I also enjoyed that revolution. And the Syrian counter rally. Then another and another until the anti-Syrian protesters outmanned them. Western reporters walking freely in amongst the anti-Syrian protesters also said something to me. Don't discount our supporters in the middle east. 60-70% might hate us, but there always the 40-30% that do not.

Finally, what are these "democratic reforms all over the middle east" that you refer to?

There have been steps made towards real democracy in Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Increasing opposition movements in Iran. Obviously, Lebanon. The steps may seem insignificant to us, but they are monumental steps there.

Yes, and it helped that the Chrysanthemum throne backed the Meiji Restoration and the Westernization that came along with that - I don't see Allah being as generous for us.
The willing players are the voters and the lines of recruits, but there is also the people who attack Western Forces everyday, kill politicians, and drive bombs into recruiting line-ups.  I worry that the will to struggle for such a foreign and alien concept as democracy will wilt under the threat of sectarian violence.  The 13 Colonies would not wilt because they had convention dating back to Runnymede - no such thing exists in Afghanistan or Iraq.

No one ever said it would be easy.

???
So reconstruction is easier if the population of the country is divided against itself, promoting sectarian violence?  Judging from the fact that Al Qaeda's strength among the Kurds grew after the invasion and that both Shia and Sunni will fight the Coalition in the streets of Iraq (Najaf, Fallujah), I would say that there is some degree of agreement and unity in the goals of Insurgent forces in Iraq.

There is, of course, a nationalist insurgency in Iraq. It makes it more challenging to pacify when they are fighting eachother as well, but if those fighting eachother were all focused on fighting the Coalition, it would be quite a bit more challenging.

I have no doubt the same will happen in Afghanistan if tribal politics turns it head and bites us in the ***.

I'm not to sure that all those Palestinians are dedicated Salafists.  How about Shia's in Iran and Iraq (there is enough anti-Western sentiment from them) - you're not trying to tell me that they are actually Sunni's in disguise?  Painting with the big brush again.

If they're wearing a bin Laden t-shirt (which is what I was talking about). I'd say chances are good they aren't Shi'a. The Taliban and Al Qaeda killed off many Shi'a in Afghanistan. Bin Laden believes that the Shi'a are heretics. Who's broad brush, again?

Whatever, change the name to some Plains Indian tribe - the point remains the same.

Okay, so we West invaded Iraq to target Islamic Fundamentalist Islam?  Support for the AQ aside, the Taliban was fundamentalist, but I don't recall them taking claim for many attacks on us.  Again, the connotations of "War on Terror" are too narrow, is insufficient at providing a proper viewpoint of the full spectrum of the conflict, and (again) paints with a broad brush.

War on Insurgency certainly wouldn't be accurate. Neither would War on Islamic Insurgency. We have to call it something, you know? We can't say we're at war with one group, there's hundreds of them. We went to Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda, because the Taliban refused to let the US have bin Laden. So now we are also fighting a domestic insurgency. What would you title it? What is a proper title for Canada to use, and seperately (or similarly) the west?

New to whom, new to what?

Most (if not all) of the above have also made conventional attacks on military targets, conducted propaganda campaigns, and undertaken economic ventures to shore up their infrastructure - terrorism is simply one tactic that these people will use to see their ends met; it is neither the chief tactic nor the defining one.

Yes, and it is one tactic that seperates our modern sense of civility to their methods. It's also a clear dividing point between radical Islamists and moderates. Even the ones that agree with the ends, they often do not justify the means, in this case.

Did we have to imprison or kill most German's or Japanese to achieve victory over them?  No.

Of the German/Japanese radicals that did not surrender or stand down when commanded, we had to have imprisoned, killed or converted. Since no one has the stomach to convert these radicals, we'll have to settle for the other two options.

The enemy is not a lunatic fringe, and seems to be, from the firm and unswerving level of attacks and opposition against us in the last 15 years, a substantial portion of the Muslim world - at least, this is what the Pew Research Center finds:

In the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up. Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

They must of interviewed all the Salafists, eh?

I disagree that the "enemy" can simply be defined as someone who hates or dislikes the US. There are many people in this country whom think that suicide attacks are justifiable. I doubt those people interviewed in Turkey were wearing Bin Laden tshirts, so I would also doubt that they are Salafists. Again, you are blurring distinctions here. Bin Laden may not be popular in Turkey, but Mein Kampf sure is. I'm sure that there are many who just want to see the US get punched a few more times by anyone. But of those who actually want bin Laden to "win", those that have the same values and goals, well they certainly could be described as Salafists, couldn't they?

So, what you seem to suggest is that there is no way to undercut the enemies will to fight (of which addressing specific grievances is one way) and that the entire Islamic world is one big Masada?

No. I am saying that there is no room for appeasement and there are plenty of ways to undercut our enemies.

As much as applaud you for your trips to the front lines of cyberspace, I'm not sure how we can take the words of a few internet blusterers like you and I to represent the motives and motivations of the enemy.

A few? How about thousands upon thousands..

Regardless, if you're not monitoring the internet, you're not paying attention to a major front. There are plenty of chat rooms, web sites and forums dedicated to our destruction. You might want to disregard the average Joe's opinion, but it's generally not a Good Idea.

Why you mention PMC's is beyond me.

Allahu Akbar is a very common term amongst Muslims - I heard Bosnian Muslims use it for many things.  As well, it is used for many different occasions - a Tajik tribal leader could use it to express gratitude for the great dinner:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah_Akbar

I know what Allahu Ackbar means. That's not the point. The point is, they are not thinking about Iraq or Palestine when they are about to attack. They are thinking about Allah, and their misinterpretation of what they believe Allah is telling them to do, as read in the Qu'ran. They are not striking a blow FOR Iraq, they are striking a blow AGAINST what they see as infidels.

I'm sensing that you've got your cultural blinders on good and tight - you seem to take a long-standing practice in the Muslim world as a sign of terrorist extremism.

No. You misunderstand.

Distorted views of the world...hmm, I see - the Black and White thing again.  Looks like this one is going to come to a close pretty quick; no point in me trying to undercut your pillar of moral superiority.

Well, you've completely misunderstood my point, which was *not* that saying Allahu Ackbar (being a Muslim) makes one a terrorist..

Tell me, if there was only two people in the world - you and one of the enemy - who would be right?

That depends on the disagreement, doesn't it.

You never answered my question - are all of our enemies relying on a convention of their Faith to be pathological liars?  None of them ever say what they mean?

I am saying, that's the PR is not the Reality. The handouts, the posters, the tape recordings, the videos, all claiming what the left here like to typify as legitimate grievances. Iraq. Guantanamo Bay. Etc. They have their "experts" and public relation organizations who outwardly seem well spoken and moderate, but when you look at their past statements and associates you get a better view of their true beliefs. Which has very little to do with Iraq, and a lot more to do with our culture. (Foreign policy vs Domestic policy) (What we do vs. Who we are) I am saying that amongst the terrorists there are certainly a minority who are doing it simply for Iraq, or simply for Gitmo. I'm not saying that Iraq does not tick off the others. But those who chose to go to war based Soley on those events are a small minority. Most of these terrorist cells have been around for some time. Now amongst the domestic insurgents! is a different story, I would say that it's far more likely that such issues drum up more recruits. I seperate terrorists from insurgents, they are different beasts. It's you who wants to paint with a broad brush and define them all as insurgents. This nullifies any deterrent effect that a terrorist label aquires, as any true Muslim abhors the slaughter of innocents. It's a dividing line and point of distinction that must not be hidden or swept under by an insurgent label.

 

[McG]

This in not a war
By TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
Saturday, July 9, 2005 Updated at 9:49 AM EDT
Globe and Mail Update

When the bombs hit my native city, I was asleep in California. Waking, I watched the wounded emerging from those familiar London tube stations and the wreckage of the No. 30 bus, all mediated through American television. One American commentator said, "This shows we live in a world at war." And every fibre in my body cried: No, that is not the lesson of London.

London knows first-hand what war is like. It remembers the Second World War in its bricks and stones, the way New York cannot. While these bombings have produced the largest single casualty toll in London since 1945, this is not a war in the sense that American commentators like to imagine it.

Wars are won by armies. Armies backed by strong societies, economies and intelligence, to be sure; but still, armies. This one never will be.

For this is something else. Three things make such atrocities possible. First, there is the hate that makes human beings prepared to kill, and even to kill themselves, as suicide bombers, so as to take the hated with them. That is not new. It has causes. Some of them can be removed.

Second, there is the fact that the haters can move so freely among the hated, through cheap, mass public transport both within and across borders. Many live among them already, as a result of mass migration. This is new, certainly on this scale.

Finally, there is one of the great motors of history -- changes, or what we laughably call "advances," in the technology of killing. In our age of asymmetric warfare, very small groups of determined people can wound whole societies. All it needs is 10 pounds of high explosive in a backpack left on an underground train.

There will be more of this. Terrorism is not a single army that can be defeated, like Hitler's Wehrmacht. It's a technique, a means to an end, made more widely available by those "advances" in the technology of killing. It will be used, and used again. To some extent, we will have to learn to live with it, as we do with other chronic threats.

This is where London is most impressive. The capital's police chiefs had already warned that the question was "not if, but when" a terrorist attack would come. Contingency plans for the emergency services were in place, and seem to have worked reasonably well. The matter-of-fact phlegmatism, sobriety and determination with which Londoners met Thursday's attacks reflected long experience, notably of 30 years of IRA bombings, as well as national temperament.

"Just getting on with it," as Londoners do, is the best answer ordinary people can give to the terrorists. I must say they made me even more proud of my native city than did the success for London's bid to host the 2012 Olympics, announced the day before.

How much freedom are we now prepared to sacrifice in the name of security? There is a real danger that countries like the United States and the United Kingdom move toward a national security state, with further curtailment of civil liberties. That must not be -- for it will cost us liberty without bringing us any guarantee of security. I, for one, would rather remain more free, and face a marginally higher risk of being blown up by a terrorist bomb.

This does not mean being passive in response to these atrocities. But the right response does not lie, as commentators on America's Fox News would have us believe, in more military firepower to zap "the enemy" in Iraq or elsewhere. It lies in skilled policing and intelligent policy.

Quietly refusing the melodramatic metaphor of war, London's Metropolitan Police described the sites of the tube and bus bombings as "crime scenes." That's right. Crimes. Working in the most ethnically diverse city in the world, they have developed patient techniques of community relations and intelligence-gathering, as well as detection after the event.

That won't stop every attack. It didn't stop this one. But skilled policing at home, not soldiering abroad, is the way to reduce the threat from terrorists who operate and sometimes, as in the Madrid bombings last year, have themselves lived for years in the immigrant communities of our great cities. If that is true of London and Madrid, it applies equally to Toronto, Paris, Sydney or Berlin.

Then there is intelligent policy. It was right to drive al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan, by force of arms. By contrast, it becomes increasingly clear that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, almost certainly creating more terrorists that it eliminated. But now we have to make the best of a bad job there.

The last thing we should do in response to this attack is to scuttle out of Iraq. On the contrary, now is the time for all democracies to rally round the cause of building a peaceful and halfway free Iraq, while insisting on further changes in occupation policy from a sobered United States, no longer infused with the neo-conservative hubris of three years ago.

A peace settlement between Israel and Palestine would remove another great recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorists. And, yes, working toward the modernization, liberalization and eventual democratization of the wider Middle East is the only certain, long-term way to drain the swamp in which terrorist mosquitoes breed. Here, it is Europe rather than the United States which needs to wake up, urgently, to the imperative of doing more.

These days, events that happen faraway, in Khartoum or Kandahar, impact directly upon us, sometimes fatally as we commute to work, sitting in the Underground train between Kings Cross and Russell Square. There is no such thing as foreign policy any more. This is perhaps the deepest lesson of the London bombings.

No, this is not a war in any familiar sense of the term. It is, however, the beginning of a long struggle, in which the conventional distinction between domestic and foreign policy no longer applies. For example, the way we treat our immigrants affects what happens in the Middle East, and our policies in the Middle East affect the way our immigrants will behave. No developed liberal democracy in the world can afford not to have a foreign policy in regions vital to our security.

Both Europe and the world's other English-speaking democracies need to learn the lessons of London, and fast. But let's be sure we learn the right lessons.

Timothy Garton Ash is a professor of European studies at the University of Oxford, and the author of eight books of political writing, most recently Free World: Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time.

 

[McG]

A war without end, an enemy without leaders
As global death toll climbs, bin Laden hunter sees need for a change of strategy
The Associated Press
(Printed: Edmonton Journal)
Sunday, July 10, 2005

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London. When will it end?  No time soon, experts say. One terrorism researcher sees the prospect of "endless" war.  Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, "I don't think it's even started yet."

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe al-Qaeda is mutating into a global insurgency, technologically astute and almost leaderless.

Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, says that rather than move toward solutions, the U.S. took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

"We're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining" where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaeda, Scheuer said.

Thursday's attacks on London's transit system mirrored last year's bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaeda evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders need only offer video or Internet inspiration to local jihadists who carry out the strikes.

A group using al-Qaeda's name made a claim of responsibility, otherwise unconfirmed, for the London attacks. Experts say the bombings bore the hallmarks of al-Qaeda.

The movement's evolution has given rise to a "virtual network that is extremely adaptable," said Jonathan Stevenson of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The movement adapted, for example, by switching from targeting aviation, where security was reinforced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to the softer targets of mass transit.

Such compartmentalized groupings, in touch electronically but with little central control, "are going to be a prototype for understanding where terrorist movements are going in the 21st century," said Cynthia Combs, co-author of a terrorism encyclopedia.

Combs said the so-called Earth and Animal Liberation fronts in the United States are examples -- if less lethal ones -- of "leaderless" militant movements based on isolated cells. She also said it's not unrealistic that another American example -- far-right militia cells -- might make common cause someday with foreign terrorists against the U.S. government.

Bruce Hoffman, the veteran RAND Corp. specialist who fears an "endless war," dismisses talk of al-Qaeda's back having been broken by the capture of some leaders.

"From the terrorists' point of view, it seems they have calculated they need to do just one significant terrorist attack a year in another capital, and it regenerates the same fear and anxieties," said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq.

What should be broken, he said, is the cycle of terrorist recruitment through the generations.

He and most of the other half-dozen experts said the world's richer powers must address underlying causes -- lessen the appeal of radicalism by improving economies, political rights and education in Arab and Muslim countries.

Not all agree this is an answer. Stephen Sloan, another veteran scholar in the field, prescribes stoicism.  The American, British and other target publics must give their intelligence and police agencies time to close ranks globally and crush the challenge, said Sloan, of the University of Central Florida.  "The public has to have the resolve to face the reality there will be other incidents," he said.

 

[McG]

Can the war on terrorism be won?
As long as there are individuals who buy into an ideology of hate and who are intent on carrying out such barbaric attacks, there is very little government leaders can do to eliminate altogether these atrocious and indiscriminate acts
W. Andy Knight
Edmonton Journal Freelance
Monday, July 11, 2005

By carrying out Thursday's orchestrated bomb attacks in London's subway system -- considered the worst assault on the city since the Second World War -- organized terrorist organizations have once again demonstrated why the Anglo-American war on terrorism cannot be won.

The four coordinated bomb blasts that killed over 50 people and injured 700-plus during the height of rush hour did more than merely shut down London's transport system. It had an instant impact on the London stock market, it clouded the opening of the G-8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, and it put a damper on the giddy victory celebrations a day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" claimed responsibility for the bombings and announced that these actions were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although so far this claim hasn't been officially verified, the synchronicity of the attacks is eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda on the World Trade Centre buildings and the Pentagon.

If, in fact, there is an al-Qaeda connection to the London attacks, the governments of Italy and Denmark should brace themselves for similar terrorist onslaughts. The same al-Qaeda group in Europe has also claimed responsibility for the last major terror attack in Europe -- the March 2004 string of bombs that hit commuter trains in Madrid and killed 191people. The group has vowed to take revenge on all countries that have joined the Anglo-American "coalition of the willing" in the war in Iraq, but has singled out Italy and Denmark in particular.

Italy is the closest ally of the U.S. in continental Europe and the third largest Western member of the coalition forces in Iraq today. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has acknowledged that because of Italy's role in Iraq, the country is bracing for a terrorist attack.

Despite the overwhelming opposition of the people of Denmark to their country's involvement in the Iraq war, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has resisted public pressure to withdraw military forces from Iraq. Denmark's 500 plus troops are being used to train Iraqi security forces based in the southern part of the country. Denmark, like Italy, is on heightened security. But as its Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said recently, it is only a matter of time before the terrorists "slip through the net."

Whether or not "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" carried out the London attacks, it is clear that U.S. and British intelligence organizations were unable to intercept the perpetrators. It is a grim reminder that terrorists can strike anywhere and at any time of their choosing, and that our governments are unable to stop them.

Not that our leaders will concede this. Immediately after the bombings, both Tony Blair and George Bush announced to the world that the U.S. and Britain will not be cowed by terrorists, that they will not yield to such boldface attempts to terrorize the American and British populations, and that the war on terror will continue until it is won.

While one cannot question these leaders' resolve, major questions will continue to be raised about their ability to "win the war on terrorism."

As the Israelis have discovered, terror cannot be eliminated, but only contained. As long as there are individuals who buy into an ideology of hate and who are intent on carrying out such barbaric attacks, there is very little that government leaders, even those from the most powerful countries in the world, can do to eliminate altogether these atrocious and indiscriminate acts.

Canada is not immune from terrorism. While we are not directly in the gunsights of al-Qaeda, our military forces are engaged in the U.S. led war on terror in places like Afghanistan. Therefore, we would be wise not to delude ourselves into thinking that terrorism cannot happen here.

Each Canadian citizen ought to be vigilant and observant whenever they travel on buses, trains, ships and airliners. We should demand that our governments have emergency plans in place should something like the London attacks or the Sept. 11 attacks occur on our soil. But we should never be lulled into believing our political leaders when they say that the war on terrorism will be won.

Conventional wars pit armed military forces against other armed military forces. The war on terrorism is unconventional. The targets are shadowy figures distributed across many nations and operating in cells with the ability to act without central command and leadership. It is not easy to identify these cells or to locate the individuals that comprise them. There is no way of knowing how long this war will last. Like the Hydra of Greek folklore, when one terrorist cell is coercively eliminated another one seems to pop up in its place.

To be even marginally successful, our efforts will require the cooperation and collaboration of the entire international community, not just a small coalition of states -- however powerful -- to dry up the source of funds that terrorists use to finance their attacks, to monitor their movements, and to arrest terrorist suspects. However, some of the countries in our international community are sponsors of terrorism or are quite willing to turn a blind eye to terrorist activity that are specifically aimed at the world's hegemonic power and its allies.

Subduing terror will also require the cooperation of non-state actors; including some who may have connections to the terrorists. It will also involve training a new corps of youthful intelligence agents who can speak the language of the terrorists, who understand the culture of those suspected of terrorism, and who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the values that we hold dear.

Some of this is certainly possible; some is possible in theory. But can the war on terror be finally and irrevocably "won"? Observe New York, Washington, Bali, Hebron, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Madrid, Beslan, and London, and you be the judge.

W. Andy Knight is professor of international relations at the University of Alberta.

 

[McG]

Capture hearts of Muslims to end terrorism
Attacks in Canada are likely and unpreventable, emergency preparedness expert says
Mohammed Adam
CanWest News Service with files from The Canadian Press
(Printed in the Edmonton Journal)
Monday, July 11, 2005

TORONTO -- Canada is a likely target for terrorism but there is little the country can do to prevent a large-scale disaster similar to last week's subway bombings in London, says the executive director for the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness.

"London knew that its underground was a prime target and they were unable to prevent it," Adrian Gordon said in an interview Saturday on the first day of a World Conference on Disaster Management being held in Toronto.

"We are going to be unable to prevent something similar from happening in Canada -- which it probably will -- because there is only so much one can do."

Gordon and other security and emergency relief experts from more than 50 countries began the conference with a call for a dramatic rethinking of the global strategy on terrorism.

The experts say the free world has done a good job so far using counterterrorism measures and military force to combat terrorism. But it hasn't done as well in understanding and tackling the disenchantment that creates it.

They say the al-Qaeda terror network's development into a global movement that is increasingly attracting new recruits warrants a "challenge to the assumptions to the war on terror."

Former Scotland Yard anti-terrorism expert Peter Power says the West must embark on a new campaign for the hearts and minds of Muslims, especially the young ones. And it has to critically re-examine government policies to find out if they are feeding the fires of hatred in the Muslim world.

"Yes, we have to attack and annihilate those who seek to kill us, and so there's no point in having a dialogue with al-Qaeda, because they want to kill us," said Power, who spent 20 years as a Scotland Yard counterterrorism official during the heyday of the IRA terror campaign.

"But we are in a long game and we've got to get into the Muslim communities, go to the mullahs, go to the teachers, go to the children and understand what is happening. We may not prevent the bomb next year, but we could be getting the preventive process ready to stop the bomb in five years."

Gordon agreed. "The war on terrorism is necessary, but it can't all be meeting force with force," he said. "It seems that there is a great reluctance to deal with root causes of terrorism that are intrinsically linked with foreign policies. But we need to spend a lot more time looking at those causes."

Originally meant to focus on the threat of pandemics and natural disasters, the conference has been overshadowed by last week's terror attacks in London. Anne McLellan, the deputy prime minister and public safety minister, is to address the more than 1,000 delegates and experts today on what lies ahead for Canada.

Over the next three days, the experts will focus on the practicalities of fighting terrorism and natural disasters.

Power, who is now an international security consultant, says what he finds troubling is that despite the war on terror, the hatred of the West -- especially the U.S. -- is growing, not abating.

Power says it is that kind of mind-set that the West has to deal with, and argues it is vital to try to understand why so many men and women around the world feel this way. And clearly, he said, there has to be more to it than the oft-held belief that "they hate our freedoms."

He said Britain had to make an effort to understand the IRA, which had killed thousands of people, in order to mount an effective campaign against the organization.

The free world must do the same in the Muslim world.

 

[McG]

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 columnist 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.

  We are at war with the enemy, but there is very much that is criminal about some of the enemy's tactics.  The Hague and Geneva conventions have achieved customary status (meaning even non-signatories are held to be governed by these international laws).  Identifying individuals as war or humanitarian law criminals may do noting to win the war.  However, holding the murderers accountable gives us a tool to ensure they are punished and locked away well after the war is over.  We did not pretend that the holocaust was legitimate because the Nazis executed it through a war, and we should not pretend the terrorists are employing legitimate means either.

Look at Afghanistan - the Soviets dispersed the Afghans in days, driving there tanks in and saying "Zdravstvuite, Comrades!"  13 years later, the Afghans were still fighting and any hope for a Soviet backed Communist government fell.  Does our current situation not seem to be a replay of this?

I'd have to do a little more investigating before I could answer this.  However, just as a thinking point: Was the Soviet approach in Afghanistan similar to the Russian approach in Chechnya? (i.e.: very heavy handed & not much in the way of reconstruction)  Could it be that Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a failure to win a â Å“hearts & mindsâ ? campaign?  Could it be that Soviet failure in Afghanistan was a failure to establish institutions (esp security agencies) that would sustain themsleves?  Could it be that Soviet failure in Afghanistan was because the Afghanis new that the Soviets had no intentions of returning that country to its own independant destiny?

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.

I think you are over simplifying the meaning behind "terrorist ideology."  It has room for â Å“Jihad against trasgression of dar al-Islam by infidels and apostates,â ? but it also includes identifying the west as responsible for certain hardships or alienation.

I understand why you consider it total war. It is not Total War. It has a wide spectrum, yes, but it is not all encompassing, as of yet.

The concept of "total war" was evolved describing states fighting states.  Obviously, to apply it to our current enemy (which does not exist as a state) requires some literary license.  Our enemy cannot mobilize the full resources of the state to draft armies and manufacture weapons.  The enemy does not have the firepower to put us into a MAD nuclear battle.  However, make no mistake, the enemy is putting every available resource into this war.  The enemy does not consider the principal of proportionality when determining valid targets.  The enemy is determined to not only destroy our ability to fight, but to destroy our society.

 

[couchcommander]

Bah I hate wading into these things, but...

Infanteer,

The people we are dealing with are indeed terrorists IMO. This can be seen in the methods they use to acheive their goals, namely employing tactics which are designed more to instill fear in the general population than to do serious damage to their target (our nations as a whole). Furthermore, these individuals and groups are pursuing very specific aims, though each groups particular reasons differ, in large part it is to get us out of middle east.  

Finally these groups and individuals are indeed conducting criminals acts (and IMO need to be dealt with accordingly). They cannot declare war on a nation state anymore than you or I could (well, we could, but it would be meaningless...). Though there are indeed cases where this "War on Terror" will lead us into "war" (I say "war" because if the US decides, like it has for the last half century, to forgo the requirement of international law to actually declare war before invading a country, then it's difficult for me to call it war proper), ie when we encounter a state that is sponsoring terrorism, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and what will likely end up being Iran, NK, Syria, and a host of other smaller targets; groups that carry out attacks independantly of a state are criminals, however organized and effective they might be. This is because they are indeed committing a crime, both in the state in whch they launch their attack, and in the state from which they operate. They are not a state, I wouldn't even call them a nation. They are not a government. They have no authority to proclaim legislation, govern, declare war, etc.; they are citizens of another state (or sometimes our own) who are breaking laws.  

Regarding the notion that we are in a state of total war, sorry MCG but I really have to disagree. IMO Right now we are engaged in a very low intensity conflict with dispersed and heterogenous combatants who are pursuing actions against us on a realtively infrequent basis using a limited set of resources.

When every single person who believes in this extremist cause picks up a rifle and does everything they possibly can to kill or injure our soldiers and citizens whenever possible using every single resource they can get their hands on, then THEY will be in a state of total war, though I doubt we would be.

[edited to sound less like I was proclaiming gospel....]