« Save the cheerleader, save the--no wait, that's another topic... | Home | McCain Refuses to Endorse Likely GOP Nominee »
Ending the Global War on Terror
A recent RAND research effort sheds light on this issue by investigating how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.Rand suggests we drop the phrase Global War on Terror and simple refer to the police operations as counter-terrorism.
Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations -- both in the United States and elsewhere -- that there is a battlefield solution. It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors. Terrorists should be perceived as criminals, not holy warriors.Since the US government probably paid for this report, what are the chances that anyone in the Pentagon or White House will read it?
Advertisement















Hip, hip, hurray! Some group with a modicum of respect actually understands the "global war on terror"! I'm almost too shocked to find words to write here.
If you are at all rational you have to know that there has never actually been a "global war on terror", nor should there have been one. By the very definition of "terrorists" they are simply criminals, perhaps international criminals, but never a military outfit. The 9/11 terrorists almost to a man were killed in their attacks. They were not even around to be a part of a big terrorist organization. After 9/11 what remained to be done was to identify the accessories to those crimes, arrest them, charge them and convict them.
But, no, our national blood lust required that we mount an assault on Afghanistan as a response, forgetting that not one of the 9/11 terrorists was from that country. In fact the actual plotting for the 9/11 attacks was mostly done in Germany. The financial support for the attackers came largely from Saudi Arabia, as did most of the attackers. Given the good relationship between the Bush's and the Saudis, identifying those who aided in that assault should have been an easy job for the Saudis, and one they would have been happy to do for us, or for the Bushs.
So, now the "central front" in the non-existent "global war on terrorism" is against Iraqis fighting to control their own government against an invader, us. I coulda sworn this was 2008 and not 1984.
July 29, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, Hoppy. The US government never invaded Italy in order to stop the mafia. And, heck, if Bush had been president during or a few decades after Prohibition, he'd have seen all those Italians running mobs and then invaded Greece.
July 29, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and by today, Greece might actually have a working government, but no remaining antiquities. The Parthenon would be in pieces all over the world, serving as bird bath bases. The Greek economy would be based on flooding the world with Retsina wines.
July 29, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the Athenians and Spartans would still occasionally hold Greco Roman wrestling battles that would squash children by the threes. So, thank Zeus Bush hadn't been born soon enough.
July 29, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mohammed Atta also got flight training at the little town of Venice, Florida-Huffman Aviation. It wasn't all planned overseas.
Coincidentally it was the same airport that the Iran-Contra boys (remember Hasenfus and Secord?) flew out of when Republicans were running guns illegally to Central America, and illegally selling missiles to Iran.
July 30, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So we should have launched an attack on Alabama, I assume. Those old folks in Florida would have mounted a mean defense.
July 30, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I made this argument about 3 years ago I'd get "How can you possibly say we're not at war?" or something similar. When I made this argument a few days ago no other blogger supported my position although noone argued against me either.
So it's taken 7 years since the originating event to get a report that actually defines critically the problems the US faces. God only knows the military never have.
I think 7 years may be longer than any major conflict since the Napoleonic wars! Over the same time frame the US planned for, mobilized hugely for (not only in people and materiale but also technology), and organized their post-war occupation of both western Europe and Japan after WWII's successful conclusion. And those occupations showed better recovery after greater destruction.
It says much about how this particularly ideological and bone-headed administration works and more about our press and critical abilities that honest debate has been so long supressed and only now coming around to the problem we're actually faced with. The US does not come out well on this, whether judging the administration, Congress, the Courts, the press, or our civic leaders.
Thank god there was never an actual threat to the USA's survival. These guys would have lost the war. Even so, we have lost a lot. The Constitution and habeas corpus, our laws: FISA, extraordinary rendition, torture, no military held responsible for unneccessary infractions, and, worse, no US hired contractors...these are sad days.
So how many lives is that wasted? And just how much money?
That's really pretty disgusting, don't you think?
And it was criminal, too.
July 30, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL hoppy you couldn't have said it any better. I think some of Dale Pecks literary prowess has rubbed off on you. Wish I could write like that.
July 30, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
A new report from the Rand Corporation says . . . .
"It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
Promising sixty more years of Slippin' and Slidin' - Shuckin' and Jivin' Motto, The Rand Corporation
July 30, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm not mistaken one democratic nominee, John Edwards, forcefully rejected "GWOT" and received little support from his now late to catch up comrades in ideas.
Does it really take RAND Corps vile military industrial complex imprimatur to come to such conclusions.
July 30, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it does, which should shame all of us who consider ourselves rational democrats.
The big questions now are: how can we get our politicians to stop embarrassing themselves and us by continuing to act as if the years from 2001-2009 made any sense at all?
And, how can we make sure we never again get so ideologically tangled that we end up saying things like "I'm against Iraq but I was for Afghanistan." (Man I hated hearing that!)
Maybe if we had been a little quicker with the phrase "you have got to be f---ing kidding me" when people started talking about "acts of war" after 9/11, some of this could have been avoided. The invasion of Afghanistan started this disaster, not the invasion of Iraq.
We should not have allowed the "police action" jeers of the freedom fry eating disintelligentsia to stop us from pointing out that declaring war on terror was the stupidest idea of the new millenium. (Partly because it eliminated the method of using policing techniques to track AQ, but for so many other reasons as well.) The Europeans knew this would go badly, which is why they lost sympathy for us so quickly.
Again, how can we work to permanently discredit what the NeoCons did (with the approval of so many liberals and conservatives) and make sure that reason prevails in future??????? I am serious about this question--there is so much crappy thinking and talking out there on this issue that we really need to clean house.
July 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never supported a war on terror (which is unwinnable and never ends), but I did support a war on Osama and his gang.
I also think kicking the Taliban out of power was a mistake because we now can't allow them to return, and that means we're in deep shi* in Afghanistan. Obama and McCain both want to reinforce our troops there.
Afghanistan cannot be conquered, History has shown this, you can only gain a temproary win. We should get out and turn the hunt for Osama over to the CIA and special forces.
July 30, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink