by Jack
“Terrorism is the weaponization of fear.” (U.S. Army manual – 2006) That’s probably the best definition I’ve ever found on terrorism. By targeting civilian noncombatants, terrorists hope to use fear to achieve their objective. It’s just that simple.
But, terrorism never holds territory, only an army on the ground can do that, so why use terrorism? From the perspective of terrorist, it’s a cheap way to inflict pain on the other side, and terrorist groups are hard to eliminate completely; it’s like trying to stamp out an idea. So, they (terrorists) are durable, they prolong conflict and they are cost effective.
Terrorism ties up the most valuable resources of a country as they try in vain to cover all the likely targets. However, the terrorist need only find one target done on a time frame of the terrorists choosing. The defenders need to be on guard 24/7. You can see how trying to hard to defend against terrorism can bleed a nation’s resources white.
On another level, terrorism can leverage up the effectiveness of an allied ground army against superior numbers. However, despite these dangers it would be a terrible mistake to overestimate the potential for success of terrorist groups. This can only result in over committing of expensive military and civilian resources to counter-terrorism.
Following 9/11 if the United States had only responded to countering the most direct threats and allocated more on rebuilding the damage, it’s highly likely we would be better off today. We certainly would be several trillion dollars less in debt and our economy would not have suffered from restrictive security methods. Speaking of those measures that involved overhauling airport security, whatever was did was aimed at counter the last know method of attack, and in that sense our security was always one step behind.
Here’s the bottom line: Any effective policy to counter terrorism must incorporate a full understanding of the grievances as well as the goals/objectives by the terrorists. Terrorism is a political problem that includes idealism, culture, history, religion and then exploits each area for it’s agenda. So, in the final analysis terrorism will be defeated by political, not military solutions.
Military solutions are at best a stop gap method and at worst, well, they might actually make things worse. Military force, unless used extremely wisely, can lead to expanding a war due to cultural/religious clashes. This is all about numbers….if we create 10 after killing 5, we are not winning. We need to improve our strategy and that’s where we are right now. Does Hillary or Donald get it? Time will tell, but I doubt it because neither has the background to pull off what needs to be done.
If I’m reading you right, although we misread the Iraqi army going into Iraq which bogged us down, the political solution to defeating terrorists was freeing the Iraqi people to form their own democratic government and using that military fight to attract terrorists into that arena, which it did. It was both a military and a political strategy. Once we restructured our fight to include work on the ground to win the trust of the people and help them to rebuild, the surge finished both jobs. Iraq was stable, the terrorists were all but defeated. The strategy worked and the threat was greatly diminished.
What a different world we’d be living in today if only three things had happened:
1. We had elected a president who could see the value/progress made and would follow the advice of the generals following through,
2. We had elected a president who would put this nation back on track economically, and,
3. We had elected a president that concentrated on strength in the economy over adding big government programs and doubling our debt.
Sadly, we didn’t do that. But if we are going to turn both the war and our economy around we had better take a second look at what has worked and what has not worked and set our sites on what works.
The head of the snake has established a “state” in which to organize and plan thanks to our Presidents decision to abandon Iraq (stupid war), interfere and meddle in Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Iran, insult and abandon allies, turn his focus to his domestic agenda (Obamacare- special interest groups), and take a giant step back as the leader of the world.
I don’t mind the fact that America is no longer leading the world but it sure stinks that we have given up that role in such a pathetically clumsy and embarrassing fashion and helped to place the world in danger both in terms of terrorism and the economy.
I’d say terrorism is the weaponization of intimidation to cause fear, disorientation, panic, and weakness. So far since 2008, they’re winning. Stepping back and changing focus has not served us well. We need someone who is focused on winning again, even if he is as bombastic as Patton.
“If I’m reading you right, although we misread the Iraqi army going into Iraq which bogged us down, the political solution to defeating terrorists was freeing the Iraqi people to form their own democratic government and using that military fight to attract terrorists into that arena, which it did. It was both a military and a political strategy.”
I have never heard anyone claim that attracting terrorists to Iraq was an intentional strategy, rather than an unintended consequence. This seems like revisionist history to me. Do you have evidence that this was a deliberate strategy by the Bush administration?
I agree. One can only trust that our next president is surrounded by the best and brightest of advisors when addressing terrorism.
From the understanding the progressive knee jerk, political agenda motivated, progressive response to terrorism department …
Progressive language policing and censoring morons pop up everywhere in government. Piss must be proud —
Lynch: “Partial Transcript” Of Orlando 911 Calls Will Have References To Islamic Terrorism Removed
— Inside every liberal, every Democrat, every progressive tool is a totalitarian propagandist pinhead screaming to get out. Or is already out.
Jack nails it.
Re Tina : “I’d say terrorism is the weaponization of intimidation to cause fear, disorientation, panic, and weakness.”
This is precisely why progressives and Islamo-fascists have so much mutual respect.
Absolutely…the big fat authoritarian bullies!
“Inside every liberal, every Democrat, every progressive tool is a totalitarian propagandist pinhead screaming to get out.”
It can’t be said often enough, we are living in dire times the likes of which have not been seen since WWII.
“Time will tell, but I doubt it because neither has the background to pull off what needs to be done. ”
I’d bet on Trump over Hillary. Trump looks for the best people to advise and execute.
Having already served in government, Hillary reveals her abilities in a record of meagerness in her resume prior to serving at State and then failure (ISIS), corrupt practices (private email server), cover-up (Benghazi video sham), and lying (Take your pick).
“Trump looks for the best people to advise and execute.”
False.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy-advisers.html
Trump surrounds himself with morons, yes men and thugs. Most of his campaign advisers have embarrassed him in some form or another. He makes outrageous claims about foreign policy, such as that the Obama administration supported ISIS, which he got from a Breitbart article which misread an intelligence memo. Top military officials have condemned this disgusting accusation:
http://time.com/4371602/donald-trump-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-isis-syria/
Every time Trump opens his mouth he proves he has no idea what he is talking about. And his surrogates do the same. Why on earth would you believe Trump “looks for the best people?” Just because he says he does? How gullible are you?
Well, it sounds like you get it.
But if you get it, why were you all jumping up and down, just the other day … howling, because the O-man is employing the principles of successful counter-terrorism (as opposed to your wishes for defamation and vows to eternal vengeance)?
Man-Splain it to me.
You play dumb pretty well Libs…”vengeance,” really?
“…why were you all jumping up and down, just the other day … howling, because the O-man is employing the principles of successful counter-terrorism”
No man here, but I’ll ‘splain: What is his plan? What strategy with beginning, middle and end, has he got? The man has not inspired trust or support.
You do know that you did not explain, right?
You do know that in the most recent post you quite willfully mischaracterized Omar’s motivation and defamed Islam, right?
Jack may get it, but you plainly do not. You are being truly pig-headed, insisting upon two words because they console you ..: and offend the enemy.
That is sooooo schoolyard.
Actually, Libby, the words “Islamic terrorist” don’t offend the enemy; what offends them is saying that they are not truly Islamic.
I say we offend them even more.
There are over a billion Muslims in the world. We have a pretty vested interest in convincing people that what ISIS does is NOT what Islam is about. ISIS has a vested interest in convincing people that it is. It’s sad to see that so many conservatives share the same goal.
The only people saying that conservatives “share that same goal” are partisan liberals like you. Your goal has nothing to do with winning the war; your goal is to try to discredit the only group you ever work hard to defeat…conservatives/Republicans. Frankly you’ve been much better at that, which shows the lackluster level of commitment you have to destroying ISIS and its dispersed followers.
The tactic to remain vague and mute isn’t working, by the way. The enemy has grown and grown stronger. The enemy doesn’t set it’s goals according to Obama’s worthless word games. They follow their radical Koranic ideology. The fact that they’ve intimidated the “leader” of the free world and expanded and grown under his watch is a big win for them…a huge recruitment tool that feeds on the egos of young men. Obama’s feint response is weak which means he is pliable and impotent and therefore, our nation is ripe for the taking.
Obama is a far cry from the leader that spoke to the nation on 911, the leader that continued to reassure the American people and send strong messages to this vile enemy, the leader who climbed atop a smashed fire truck in the rubble of the towers and vowed to hunt the enemy down.
He didn’t insult Islam, but he didn’t mince words or play games either. He made it very clear that the terrorists had made a huge mistake and they would be ended for their trouble.
Muslims know what ISIS is and they would know that Americans know this too except the Democrats just can’t resist politicizing this like they do every other “crisis” they wish not to “waste.”
As Libby said, Jack’s article makes good points: We can’t give in to fear. The terrorists can’t succeed unless we give them what they want. We shouldn’t overreact with disproportionate actions that would cost us more than they’d gain.
But as Libby also points out, Jack, these pieces of advice run completely counter to your behavior over the past week. If we shouldn’t give the terrorists what they want, why complain that Obama won’t call the terrorists what they want to be called? If we shouldn’t overreact, why support a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, which all experts say would alienate our allies and strengthen ISIS?
Why consider a ban?
The Federalist patiently explains that there are many aspects to the war and many consideration with respect to the immigration of people from the Middle East who might wish us harm or who might not share American values in his piece, “Why Mass Muslim Migration Eviscerates Western Liberalism”
There are many reasons to consider a halt in our ME immigration policy, but since bigotry or racism are the only things that motivate your brain cells….
“Why Mass Muslim Migration Eviscerates Western Liberalism”
Nope. Sorry, this is Mein Kamp language, and I’m not about to read it.
“bigotry or racism”
The shoe fits. Wear it.