On the nature of terrorism

G

GoSlash27

New member
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.
 
I'll take a break and leave this thought to ponder:
If your opponent's actions seem irrational yet they're winning, odds are it's not your opponent who's irrational.
 
I think our main problem is that we(people in the U.S.) think that everyone else wants to be or should be like us in government and values and it just not going to happen. Especially in a Muslim part of the world where values and believes are very much different from our own.
 
Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism has a defined target and that is Western Civilization as we know it, those in the Islamic world that are allies of western civilization. We are already in the battle or war wheter or not we want to be.

Terrorism now is also in the Fouth Generation of warfare which menas that it has no defined boundries like states or nations.
 
Fundamentalist Islamic terrorism has a defined target and that is Western Civilization as we know it
Click to expand...
Not quite. The "target" of radical Islamic terrorism is political clout. They resort to coercion because they lack the political skills to garner it through legitemate means. They have no need or ability to exterminate all of Western civilization and they know it.

Terrorism now is also in the Fouth Generation of warfare which menas that it has no defined boundries like states or nations.
Click to expand...
Terrorism isn't "fourth generation", it's first generation dating all the way back to the first time one caveman turned to the other and threatened him over a coconut. You are correct in stating that it has no geopolitical boundaries. You should ponder how effective directing force against "states and nations" is as a counter.
 
That is what is precisely meant by Fourth Generation Warfare. A decentralized state of warfare. Modern warfare was designed to decrease these incidents. Fourth generation blurs the lines between politics and between civilians and soldiers. It is used to face a superior opponent and win.
Take a peek at public opinion about the war in Iraq and what is written in the media. I would say that the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists while losing on the battlefield have made great strides in attacking our underbelly where the public, politics and media are concerned.

Fundamentalist Islam and western civilization are diametrically opposed. Fundamentalist Islam does not believe in plurality or individual freedoms. As long as they see us as poisoning the minds of Islamic young or keeping apostate Islamic leaders in charge we will be their enemy. Some of the things Bin Laden wrote about in the introduction to the Al Qaeda Manual. If they can not win by popularity they will then win by getting rid of those who speak out against fundamentalist Islam.

William Lind has written about a possible opportunity to exploit in Iraq. It seems that we have backed off on the violence while the fundamentalists have escalated it against the local populace in one of the regions. Which have led the local populace to turn against the terrorists. Imagine that a deescalation in violence and maybe an escalation in dialog and cooperation.

Some of this is mentioned in the following:

http:///atlas/Atlas-ExecutiveReport.pdf

To fight fundamentalist Islam we must understand it. Its hard to get to your destination without a map or roadsigns. Which we failed to do before going to Iraq.
 
good, but not applicable

Interesting thesis, and a sound analysis, I think; at least for politically-oriented groups like the IRA, e.g.

I think you're off base from the first paragraph with radical Islam, though. They aren't seeking POLITICAL change. They want to force the establishment of a fundamentalist religion worldwide, and institute a theocratic world government ruled by religious law. I suppose that's "political" in a manner of speaking, but it certainly doesn't fit the given paradigm.

The thinking here assumes, in the case of, say, Al Qaeda, that the "grievance" is something like "Stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs". That's the line that claims (to whatever debatable degree) that the US provoked, invited, deserved, or whatever, 9/11 because of our track record in the Mideast--most notably in our support of and alliance with Israel.

Unfortunately, that would be wrong. The openly stated "grievance" of AQ is that we, the US and other Western nations, exist as free, democratic, and non-Islamic societies, and that our very existence is an intolerable insult to their religion. That stated position rather gives the lie to anyone's theory that if we simply withdraw to our own borders and mind our own business, we will no longer be targets--leaving aside the quite reasonable objection that such a wholesale withdrawal amounts to a kind of surrender and capitulation where our international interests and alliances are concerned, not to mention frankly abandoning our hard-won position as the leader of the free world.

Even if we back off and fold our hands, our society--by tolerating religions other than Islam, free, independent and unveiled women (who vote!), modern music, modern literature, independent media, a democratic Republic, and any number of other "offensive" practices--will remain a target. Bin Laden himself has declared that the Jihad against the US will only end when the entire population of this country converts to fundamentalist Islam. How does one negotiate such a "dispute"?

It would be easy to dismiss this as mere rhetoric and cynically assume that this man and his organization can be marginalized, bought off, or pacified as easily as any other fringe political group; but I think we make such facile assumptions at our peril. A group that is willing, boy and man, to deliberately and literally lay down their lives to murder innocents by the thousand, with malice aforethought, to fulfill a stated religious goal, is not likely to be cowed, intimidated, co-opted, or "softened" by any form of negotiation or political manipulation, regardless of whether or not their "identity group"--presumably Muslims--backs them up or not.

In any case, that support seems to be present anyway, though not usually explicit. AQ was not openly supported by the majority of Muslims when it began, nor on 9/11, and it isn't now; but it's worth noting, and has been noted, that that "identity group" has been remarkably silent when it comes to condemning worldwide Islamist terror. That silence cannot be accounted for by apathy or a disconnection from fundamentalist Islamic beliefs; a mildly satirical newspaper cartoon, a passing (and out-of-context) remark by a prelate, or an Islamically improper beauty pageant is enough to send Muslims by the thousands into the streets in murderous, riotous rage worldwide.

Even though the "identity group" is NOT, by any rational standard, suffering from ill-advised "retribution", it's hard not to at least speculate that it is tacitly supporting radical Islamic terrorists' goals and actions. This bodes ill for the stated strategy of driving a "wedge" between the "identity group" and the terrorists. And again: How does one negotiate "disputes" with the "nonviolent members of the identity group" if there are apparently no such disputes to negotiate--or, more ominously, if the "identity group" sympathizes with the radical Islamists' goals and methods, but is unwilling to admit it?

I'll stand by my remarks on the other thread: Though this analysis is useful in most contexts, it--and the thinking behind it--do not fully appreciate the nature or the urgency of the Jihadist threat. Radical Islam cannot and will not be "easily defeated provided we don't play the game by their rules." They recognize no "rules", and are prepared to make war on the West--and even on Western Muslims, if they are judged to be too Westernized--until we are all Wahhabi or they are all dead. They have said so, and I believe them.

I will post again shortly to show how this analysis breaks down completely in the case of Israel.
 
cnorman18, In case no one has said it yet, welcome to TFL's L&P forum. I appreciate your intelligence and how you can articulate well your points. I look forward to reading more of your posts. Many will not like your tendency toward reason and fact, be prepared for frustration.

Post often.

Bruxley
 
Israel--and the Press

I realize that the fate of Israel is of little interest to many on this board, and quite explicitly of no interest at all to Ron Paul supporters; but it is of interest to me, and I think it's worth demonstrating that the analysis presented here is of no value at all when applied to the situation of the Israelis. Since it claims to be universal, this is worth noting.

Besides, the tactics used by terrorists against Israel may soon be coming to a town near you. They have already come to Iraq.

In the case of the various terrorist organizations that target Israel, this analysis breaks down even more severely. Again, the stated "grievance" is that Israel exists at all; but even more problematically, the "identity group", the Palestinian people, manifestly have no problem at all with violence. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians support and approve of terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, and in fact, by providing safe haven and "human shields" for the terrorists, actively participate in them.

This support of violence against Jews, by the way, cannot be blamed on Israeli overreactions and alleged "atrocities" of recent years; murderous pogroms and massacres of Jewish civilians, incited by Muslim clerics and secular Arab leaders and overwhelmingly supported and participated in by the local Arab population, have taken place with depressing regularity in that area since the turn of the 20th century and before, long before Israel even existed as a nation.

In the case of Israel, there are no "non-violent representatives of the identity group" with which to negotiate. To be sure, there are and always have been Arabs who are eager to live in peace with their Jewish and Israeli neighbors; many thousands live in Israel as loyal Israeli citizens today, and have since before Israel was founded. But they have had little or no political power, and are regularly denounced by the Arab "establishment" as traitors and quislings. Often enough, they are murdered outright as examples to others.

40 years of negotiation with Arab leaders have yielded some successes; the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, to name two (and be it noted that in the case of Egypt, that treaty was followed immediately by the return of all territory captured in the 1967 war). Negotiation with terrorist groups, however--in spite of the many concessions and compromises agreed to by israel--have yielded precisely nothing. There simply have been no Palestinian leaders willing to negotiate in good faith.

It's worth remembering, in the context of the above two paragraphs, the other result of the treaty with Egypt: the murder of Anwar Sadat, who had the temerity to make peace with the Enemy.

As far as trying not to play by the terrorists' rules, no nation on Earth has tried harder to avoid civilian casualties and to target only the terrorists themselves as Israel; witness the Israeli Army's tactically nonsensical practice of going house-to-house in urban environments (e.g. Jenin), when simply carpet-bombing the area would be safer for IDF troops. If Israel were truly as bloodthirsty and ruthless as they are often portrayed, Jenin and most of southern Lebanon--not to mention various missile-launching sites in Gaza and terrorist centers in the West Bank--would be smoking parking lots.

But this sensitivity to civilian casualties is often thwarted by the terrorists' predeliction for hiding arms and explosives among the civilian population. Cf. The war in Lebanon, when Hezbollah quite deliberately used civilian apartment homes as missile-launching sites, and numerous occasions in the West Bank and Gaza when Israeli troops have been fired upon from mosques and children's schools. We have seen similar tactics in Iraq directed against American troops, with similar results.

Even though these practices are expressly prohibited by the Geneva Convention, and the blame for civilian injuries or deaths in such situations is acknowledged to be held by the violators, the result in practice is that (1) the attackers mount their assaults with impunity, or (2) the victims of such assaults are tarred as "war criminals" if they defend themselves.

"Unconventional"--read "Illegal"--tactics like this, especially when unremarked upon by the world press, are extremely hard to counter. And that is yet another point to consider here: How can a nation fight terrorism when its efforts are sabotaged by the press?

Perhaps the most intransigent obstacle to peace in the Mideast is, indeed, the above-noted failure of the world press to report on the conflict in a fair and evenhanded manner. Even though Palestinian terrorists routinely and deliberately target Israeli civilians, especially women and children, this practice generally escapes criticism of the same vehemence that is seen when there are (invariably unintentional or unavoidable) casualties resulting from Israeli actions directed solely at terrorists. Thus, Israel is held to an impossibly high standard of behavior while the terrorists are held to none at all.

If you don't think this is an important issue for Americans--the same thing is already happening to us, and we're doing it to ourselves.

The Abu Ghraib story, wherein a small group of irresponsible soldiers inflicted some relatively mild abuse upon a few prisoners, was heralded in front-page stories in the New York Times for *thirty-two straight days*, often accompanied by impassioned editorials. The abuse, while deplorable, was hardly in the same class as the unspeakably brutal and sadistic tortures inflicted on prisoners under Saddam--and yet it was routinely reported as morally equivalent, to the point that a U. S. Senator announced on the floor of the Congress that Saddam's torture chambers were open again, with the only difference being that they were "under new management". (That Senator was one Edward Kennedy.)

By way of contrast, the kidnapping, torture, murder and mutilation of U.S. soldiers by insurgents in Iraq have been reported, if at all, in small items on inside pages, with no follow-up stories or editorial comment. This has happened dozens of times.

In earlier wars, even as late as the Vietnam conflict, one could read many stories about the heroism of our soldiers in battle, including inspiring tales of men who were severely wounded or killed as a result of their heroism. Movies were made about such heroes, and their courage and patriotism were celebrated and applauded, even--as in the case of Vietnam--the war itself was questionable or even opposed.

What about today? There have been well over a hundred soldiers awarded the Medal of Honor in Iraq, many posthumously. How many of those stories have you seen in the mainstream press?

On the contrary; what we see in our major papers is a mere tally of the dead and wounded, and the tales of their bravery go untold and unacknowledged--and forget about celebration or applause. You'll never see it, except in the occasional token report at the end of a broadcast--that usually has an antiwar spin smuggled in.

But if a soldier is accused of a "war crime", credibly or not--all bets are off. Front pages, lead stories, and editorial comment, day after day, till another such story emerges.

Movies? Oh, yes. We will soon have "Redaction" in wide release. A film by Brian de Palma, it tells the story--a true one, horribly--of rape and murder committed by some U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Those soldiers were tried and convicted and are serving life sentences--it was in all the papers, of course--but de Palma says that he made the film to show "what's really going on" in Iraq, and explicitly states that he made the film to "bring an end to the war." American soldiers presented as heroes? Fat chance. They are being presented as vicious savages and war criminals. Expect great reviews.

Yes, Abu Ghraib was a shameful episode; but thirty-two straight days of front-page headlines? Crimes have been committed; but big-budget movies to trumpet them to the world?

Do you think this kind of reporting is fair, or even honest?

I've said it before, and it's growing more true by the day: We are all Israelis now.
 
bruxley

Thanks, Brux. I appreciate the kind words.

Don't worry about me. I've been posting on forums a lot more hostile than this one for 6 or 7 years, and I wear my Nomex flamesuit 24-7.

Thanks again. It's good to be here.
 
Unfortunately, that would be wrong. The openly stated "grievance" of AQ is that we, the US and other Western nations, exist as free, democratic, and non-Islamic societies, and that our very existence is an intolerable insult to their religion. That stated position rather gives the lie to anyone's theory that if we simply withdraw to our own borders and mind our own business, we will no longer be targets
Click to expand...

But why mess with us, when there are so many non-Islamic Chinese and Indian people in the world who need converting, and who are less well-equipped to resist? ;)

leaving aside the quite reasonable objection that such a wholesale withdrawal amounts to a kind of surrender and capitulation where our international interests and alliances are concerned, not to mention frankly abandoning our hard-won position as the leader of the free world.
Click to expand...

That's true, and at some point we're going to have to change that by declaring victory. There will be no "real" victory in the sense of a free, united, independent, and friendly Iraq, because "Iraq" is actually a hunk of land where three tribes who hate each other have been placed under one government. Or, we can occupy and defend Iraq for generations, like we have S. Korea, which is what I predict will happen, even if Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton is elected President.

I realize that the fate of Israel is of little interest to many on this board, and quite explicitly of no interest at all to Ron Paul supporters
Click to expand...
Just because I object to paying them so much of the taxpayers' money does not mean I don't care about their fate. The Israelis seem to know that GoSlash's paradigm does apply to them, else they would not be so restrained regarding causing civilian casualties, as you point out that they are.
 
cnorman,
Far too much to respond to all at once, but a few things I'd like to point out:
- All terrorist groups are politically motivated, including this one.
- All terrorist groups are fascist, including this one.
- All terrorist groups follow the same strategy, including this one.
- Be careful to interpret what they say in the correct context. Public statements, even when addressed to us, aren't really for our consumption.

They expect us to think and react along the lines you have posted above. In fact, they're counting on it.
Even in our current conflict, we can see examples of what works and what doesn't. Refer to Eghad's post re. William Lind.
 
goslash27

I'll stand by what I've written.

Yes, Israel has tried to avoid civilian casualties; I doubt they're doing it so much for strategic purposes as outlined in your post, but more because it's the right thing to do. The salient point, as far as your post is concerned, is that it isn't working. Not at all.

And again; one reason it isn't working is that the international press smears Israel as a band of bloodthirsty savages, no matter what they do, no matter what their (actually) bloodthirsty and savage enemies do. And the same sort of smear is being applied to us.

Does Ron Paul have a strategy for dealing with a blatantly biased and dishonest press?
 
thanks again

Thanks, Zerojunk.
For what it's worth, I'd have to say that this is the best forum where I've ever posted--and I've been posting a long time, back to the old Netscape boards (which are now extinct). Maybe that's because gunowners, unlike liberals and antis, are more likely to be rational and coherent than not.

We can still fall into a trap that's usually found on the liberal side, though, as one can see in the original post: closely reasoned academic analyses and magic solutions that will ALWAYS work, produced by ivory-tower theorists (and Congressmen), look good on paper and work in theory; but on the ground they look a little less convincing.

Ask the Israelis. They've been fighting terror for decades, and Dr. Paul's fine theories just don't work with actual, real-life, gun-toting and bomb-throwing killers.

It's odd that Paul and his followers are doing something that is so typically liberal in nature; clinging to a THEORY because it OUGHT to work, in spite of mountains of evidence that it DOESN'T work and WON'T be supported by the electorate--e.g., total intransigence in relying on ONE man's slightly eccentric interpretation of the meaning and intent of the Constitution. This facile "solution" to terrorism is another example.
 
cnorman,
Uhh, excuse me... This thread has been reasonably high-road up to this point. I'd like to keep it that way.

These so-called "ivory tower academic soultions" are supportable not because they "should" work, but because they have worked.
You scoff at the pie-in-the-sky point of view posted above and offer the Israeli solution as an improvement, but history does not bear out your assertion.
The KKK, once the world's largest terrorist organization, is now defunct thanks to my "facile" solution. Hamas, OTOH, has a ruling majority of a legislative body thanks to yours.
The IRA was defeated by my methods. Algeria was lost by yours.

Every conflict with terrorists throughout history has tought us (and them) what works and what doesn't. Shame you haven't bothered to pay attention, because your enemy most certainly has.
 
And more to the point, as I said in the opening post this is meant to present the point of view, not promote it. No rebuttals necessary.
You don't agree with it, I don't particularly care. You think I'm wrong then so be it.
But ^that's^ the mentality that I share with Dr. Paul, right or wrong. It has nothing to do with cutting & running, appeasement, or blaming America first.
It's about defeating our enemy by exploiting his weakness. It's about understanding the lessons of history and applying them. It's about winning the conflict with Al Qaeda, not just fighting it.
 
Do you really believe that the soldiers superiors didn't know about what was happening at Abu Ghraib? As usually happens, the brass gets to walk while the little fish have to fry.

Also, don't you think Ron Paul already understands what a crooked media? Afterall, he more than any other candidate is given the short end of the stick in interviews and airtimes. No matter how many times he solidly trumps the others in phone in polls on Fox, the commentators continue to simply chortle and go back to tossing Rudy slow pitches.
 
...the international press smears Israel as a band of bloodthirsty savages, no matter what they do, no matter what their (actually) bloodthirsty and savage enemies do. And the same sort of smear is being applied to us.
Click to expand...

The press, especially in America, is so cowed by the Israel lobby it's pathetic, yet it still isn't enough, I see. This poster would defend Israel no matter what...they could nuke every other Mideast country into oblivion and it would be called "legitimate self-defense." Israel scattered cluster bombs all over southern Lebanon, killed and displaced thousands of civilians, but it's all just self defense. They are pushing the US to make war on Iran, and of course, our government is only too willing to comply, since the Iraq war has gone so well. But saying this sort of thing is branded anti-Semitic. Israel is above criticism, no matter what.

Ron Paul says what needs to be said. And the original post in this thread was right-on. Thanks for posting it.
 
I also would like to point out that about 90% of my friends are in the armed forces, some of which are more like BROTHERS, and most of which are in Iraq right now. It is all well and fine to arm chair opinions from the continental united states, or soldiers opinions that get to make it into the media (usually PRO war, I might add).

These guys I went to high school with have told me things you wouldn't believe, and that I won't post here. Very, very graphic and disturbing. There is stuff happenign over there that simply isn't right, and the lion's share gets swept under the rug.

Just think about what happened (mostly in the south, but also in the norht) during the civil war. When you have standing armies in a country of civilians it is a recipe for atrocity. Think about the early reconstruction period, too. This is applicable when trying to think about what Iraq is like on the ground, perhaps moreso in the early years of the war.

I try to find the bright side. We now have a base right next to Iran. If 3k Americans and 10k + Iraqis was worth having the ability to knock-out punch Iran then we're doing good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top