I present this as an outline of the mindset required to understand Dr. Paul's position on Iraq and GWOT. I fully agree, but the point of this entry isn't to promote the view so much as explain it.
As such, no rebuttal is required.
First of all we need to define "terrorism". My functional description is the coercion of political change through violence directed at non-combatants.
Throughout history, terrorism has followed the same pattern. A small group claims to represent a population (henceforth referred to as "identity group").
This identity group often has a legitemate grievance, but as a whole are not supportive of violence as a means to resolve the dispute.
The terrorist group invariably writes a manifesto in order to justify their actions, thus fulfilling the Hobbesian "self defense" mandate. Next, they visit upon their target population an attack in hopes of provoking an inefficient or counterproductive response.
I must state at this point that historically this is the point at which the terrorist organization (such as it is) is most vulnerable. It's identity group is as opposed to violence as anyone else.
If the target government is unwise (as is all-too-often the case) they will exact their retribution against the identity group rather than the terrorist group.
This is a huge strategic error, as it allows the terrorist group to conflate it's illegal behavior with the legitemate complaint and solidifies support among the identity group for the terrorists as their defenders.
If this pattern is allowed to continue, the terrorists gain in strength and political clout until they eventually supplant entire governments. See Hamas, IRA, PLO, KKK for examples.
What's worse, the target government tends to spend exorbitant amounts of capital defending point targets, attacking the wrong targets, and ignoring the most effective courses of action.
Worst of all, it begins to undermine it's own credibility by attempting to trade freedom for security, thus further bolstering the terrorists' claims of fascism which they insist have been there all along.
The cycle has been broken throughout history and the terrorists defeated only through coming to grips with the terrorist mindset and following a common-sense plan to counter theirs.
First, recognize that radical extremism is a low-road game. They are the criminals and will win if we stoop to their level.
Next, identify and exploit their weaknesses. Invariably it involves
-resolving underlying disputes with non-violent representatives of the identity group.
-wedging the identity group from the terrorist group through exploiting the terrorists' illegal behavior not just against the target population, but against the identity population as well.
-attacking the terrorists' actions rather than their ideology.
-attacking the terrorists themselves rather than the identity group.
-reinforcing your own legitemacy (and undermining the terrorists') by refusing to violate your own laws in the battle.
The terrorists invariably (and this is born out historically) self-destruct as they find themselves fighting for a non-existent cause, betrayed by a population as the criminals they are, and eventually hunted to extinction (or at least irrelavance).
There are many bumper-sticker adages that fit the situation (a Sun-Tsu quote, or "doomed to repeat"), but direct logic and reason should be self-evident.
This isn't our first counterterrorism rodeo and it won't be our last. We know what works and what doesn't. We are well-advised to study our enemies in depth, not to sympathise but to discover their strengths and weaknesses.
Ultimately, terrorists are easily defeated provided we don't play their game by their rules.
As such, no rebuttal is required.
First of all we need to define "terrorism". My functional description is the coercion of political change through violence directed at non-combatants.
Throughout history, terrorism has followed the same pattern. A small group claims to represent a population (henceforth referred to as "identity group").
This identity group often has a legitemate grievance, but as a whole are not supportive of violence as a means to resolve the dispute.
The terrorist group invariably writes a manifesto in order to justify their actions, thus fulfilling the Hobbesian "self defense" mandate. Next, they visit upon their target population an attack in hopes of provoking an inefficient or counterproductive response.
I must state at this point that historically this is the point at which the terrorist organization (such as it is) is most vulnerable. It's identity group is as opposed to violence as anyone else.
If the target government is unwise (as is all-too-often the case) they will exact their retribution against the identity group rather than the terrorist group.
This is a huge strategic error, as it allows the terrorist group to conflate it's illegal behavior with the legitemate complaint and solidifies support among the identity group for the terrorists as their defenders.
If this pattern is allowed to continue, the terrorists gain in strength and political clout until they eventually supplant entire governments. See Hamas, IRA, PLO, KKK for examples.
What's worse, the target government tends to spend exorbitant amounts of capital defending point targets, attacking the wrong targets, and ignoring the most effective courses of action.
Worst of all, it begins to undermine it's own credibility by attempting to trade freedom for security, thus further bolstering the terrorists' claims of fascism which they insist have been there all along.
The cycle has been broken throughout history and the terrorists defeated only through coming to grips with the terrorist mindset and following a common-sense plan to counter theirs.
First, recognize that radical extremism is a low-road game. They are the criminals and will win if we stoop to their level.
Next, identify and exploit their weaknesses. Invariably it involves
-resolving underlying disputes with non-violent representatives of the identity group.
-wedging the identity group from the terrorist group through exploiting the terrorists' illegal behavior not just against the target population, but against the identity population as well.
-attacking the terrorists' actions rather than their ideology.
-attacking the terrorists themselves rather than the identity group.
-reinforcing your own legitemacy (and undermining the terrorists') by refusing to violate your own laws in the battle.
The terrorists invariably (and this is born out historically) self-destruct as they find themselves fighting for a non-existent cause, betrayed by a population as the criminals they are, and eventually hunted to extinction (or at least irrelavance).
There are many bumper-sticker adages that fit the situation (a Sun-Tsu quote, or "doomed to repeat"), but direct logic and reason should be self-evident.
This isn't our first counterterrorism rodeo and it won't be our last. We know what works and what doesn't. We are well-advised to study our enemies in depth, not to sympathise but to discover their strengths and weaknesses.
Ultimately, terrorists are easily defeated provided we don't play their game by their rules.