Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How should America fight Terrorism??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How should America fight Terrorism??

    The US today is facing one of its toughest moments. Terror threats, economic woes, ongoing and unsustainable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Taliban uprising in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda surfacing in Yemen, conflicts between Islamic groups in Somalia providing breeding grounds for future terror threats.

    Years ago, one would not think that the US will face such dire situation. That the recent failed airline bomb terror seized so much attention from the nation and spurred actions such as the US demanding every European airport with destination to US to be equipped with body-scanning devices. Years ago, the world did not expect the US to be involved in two wars and its public and politics deeply divided on the issue. The US did not expect 9/11.

    9/11 was their day of reckoning and Osama was their saint.

    Personally i and i believe many people used to view the US as impregnable and invulnerable, just like the superheroes created in their comic books. That was the times of pre-9/11. But now it seems that it is facing increasing challenges and the prospect is getting dimmer as time goes.

    I spent a moment on examining how the US will go through the fight against terrorism, and i think that the terror threat is almost unsolvable. It's a vicious unbreakable cycle that keeps renewing and spreading itself, with no weak chain-link to break. Terrorism is a nemesis, the perfect assymetrical enemy to the US.

    I have a few topics that hopefully will be interesting and thoughtful to discuss :


    1. Stick
    Sticks worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, but as the US is running out of stamina, new threats emerged in Yemen and Somalia.
    Military solution works and it is the only effective solution for now, but can the US afford to quell another insurgency militarily? Can it spend and spread itself to exhaustion while other nations are taking up the opportunity and play the politics while the US is tied up militarily?


    2. Carrot
    Carrot to Pakistan, the reaction is lukewarm at best, Pakistan remains an untrustable and unreliable ally in the fight against Taliban. Does the US needs to remain cozy with everyone and gives out blank cheques to keep the other players hands in their pocket? Is there any other alternatives out there?


    3. Terrorism, Islam, and The World
    The terrorist is striking at the heart of American people, at where they feel most secure yet weakest, invoking a feeling of insecurity that permeates all level of life. But that is only the face of terrorism. The US is facing an ideological battle similar to their fight against communism. Not that this is a religious crusade, but they are fighting to destroy the life and way of life of American people and their allies, with many ways. The world recently hold a very low opinion of the USA. Obama is playing dove to reappeal to the world. The only European country that remains a steadfast ally is the UK. The US used to earn respect form everyone in the world, which is a rare case nowadays.
    Do terrorism and fundamentalism against the US around the world, have a major factor in this change? Are they winning?
    How should the US improve its stature back in the world? The people of the world loves Obama, though their leaders hold little value of his words and popularity. Is Obama making a great effort, or will it end up fruitless and futile?



    I live in a country that has had a first hand experience from terror threats and attacks. Where the US is not very popular and the seeds of fundamentalism is growing very real. Where half educated people can easily be agitated by their clerics and radicals.
    I am curious to understanding what the US is facing today and how the Americans feel about it.

    These topics might seems to broad for a single thread. But feel free to reply to any particular questions and/or boil it all down to this question : How do you fight terrorism?

  • #2
    Interesting views and questions. You may find this of some interest

    DLC: How to Win the Peace by Gordon Brown

    Comment


    • #3
      Terrorism is a global threat that can't be eradicated but must be controlled. The US is a global power that has the most resources to lead that effort. It must develop strategies that balance our involvement in AF-PAK, address the newer Jihadist sanctuaries in Yemen, Somalia, etc. and aid, with at least advisors and intel assets, the number of other countries where Jihadist cells are active or on the rise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BrenGun View Post
        Interesting views and questions. You may find this of some interest

        DLC: How to Win the Peace by Gordon Brown
        Thats the most sensible argument Ive heard yet.

        Comment


        • #5
          These al Qaeda killers have such a strong hatred ot the US and the rest of the Christian West that they are willing to commit suicide and to kill civilians including Muslim civilians for their cause.

          The more that they, their family and Muslim 'brothers' are humiliated, imprisoned, abused or killed, the more al Qaeda will get new willing recruits to go through bombing training to become suicide killers.

          The US and the other Western countries are not just defending their home territories. Their people and their businesses are very much dispersed everywhere around the world in soft targets. With more movements of people across borders, the former is already very difficult to defend. The latter cannot be effectively defenced.

          I have come to the position that increased military forces alone by the US with the assistance of the rest of the West will not defeat al Qaeda.
          Last edited by Merlin; 06 Jan 10,, 11:41.

          Comment


          • #6
            Red Seven,

            Covert ops and aid will only cut it so far.

            Things will reach a point where the absolute submission of the regimes-- that in paper and in press joint press conferences are touted as allies (Saudi, Pakistani) but in their perfidious duplicity either covertly or overtly support the jihadist agenda through, petro$$$, ideological support, or just plain sympathy-- and "reindoctrination" of the populace en-masse in secular values and through school curriculum that teaches that jews are not pigs, christians are not crusaders, buddhists and hindus are not idolaters bound for the the fires of hell, it is uncool to commit suicide, women are to be respected, valued and set free, consumption of alcohol is a matter of personal choice, among many other things, will be the only way to defeat the Islamists long term.

            Until then just containment.
            Last edited by HillTribe; 06 Jan 10,, 11:22.
            Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Merlin View Post
              I have come to the position that increased military forces alone by the US with the assistance of the rest of the West will not defeat al Qaeda.
              The west CANNOT win without taking India, China and Russia overboard.

              But as along as the three manage to further their own interests piggybacking on the WOT, they will be content with the 'Green threat' being managed by the West without a significant commitment on their part.

              Beyond that I suspect the Russians, Chinese, and Indians wouldnt be too displeased if the west fails in its anti-terror campaigns, if only they firmly secure their contested possessions -- The Caucasus+ Central Asia, Eastern Turkestan, and Kashmir.

              Among the three India seems to be the more sincere because it is plagued by terrorism on its home soil, and yes, the significant Muslim minority within its borders means if the West's WOT is lost, India will loose too. But India's agenda also runs to the eventual dismemberment of China's proxy, Pakistan.

              China feels it can manage Turkestan by, among many other things, slowly and surely changing the demographics in its favor and buying out the despotic regimes of Central Asia by making "offers they dont refuse"-- lucrative contracts, development of infrastructure, oil deals-- and making sure anti-China activities are dealt with a heavy hand in the "Stans" by their beneficiaries. And I suspect it relishes the West getting bogged down in Central Asia while it carefully orchestrates its own rise, for it takes much heat off China. Imagine if it were not for the WOT, China would be facing the West, weary of its undemocratic nature coupled with its rising power in the pacific. WOT has bought the Chinese precious time and has given them so much breathing space.

              Russia faces a land grab east of the Urals in the near future because of declining demographics. The population is projected to dip to 95 million within the next 40 years leaving few if any Russians populating anything east of the Urals. Yet, they remain preoccupied with the European missile defense shield, carving out 'spheres of influence' among the post-Soviet republics, giving and taking beef with the West, while the very foundation of their nation state-- the demographics-- is crumbling. Although, they also face problems in the Caucasus they too feel they can manage the problem. They would also be hoping that ISAF fails in Central Asia as some sort of payback for the Afghanistan war.

              But, without the help of these three the West will only be doing a containing job WOT. But how to make the three ride the WOT bandwagon unless they see that the Green Threat is also for them to take seriously, is another thing. Maybe convince them that they will inevitably be the next on the target of the Jihadists if the West fails?
              Last edited by HillTribe; 06 Jan 10,, 12:26.
              Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by HillWarrior View Post
                Red Seven,

                Covert ops and aid will only cut it so far.

                Yes, rog that, we are in agreement. I wasn't suggesting them as a cure-all, but as a means to put pressure on the bleeds, so to speak, until more resources can be redirected. We can't be everywhere at once, but with our allies and a creative global strategy that incorporates homeland defense with international AT operations, we can try to stay on top of it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HillWarrior View Post
                  The west CANNOT win without taking India, China and Russia overboard.

                  But as along as the three manage to further their own interests ...
                  The leaders of all countries are supposed to defend and further their national interest.

                  As I said, al Qaeda's main hatred and main target is directed against the US & the West. Other countries including India, China and Russia have no fundamental reason to join in the fight against it. If they get drawn in in some way, they are not for the major reason.
                  Last edited by Merlin; 06 Jan 10,, 16:51.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                    The leaders of all countries are supposed to defend and further their national interest.

                    As I said, al Qaeda's main hatred and main target is directed against the US & the West. Other countries including India, China and Russia have no fundamental reason to join in the fight against it. If they get drawn in in some way, they are not for the major reason.
                    Al Qaeda proper is quite focused in opposing the US presence in Arab lands and against the very existence of Israel. You could even more narrowly argue that Al Qaeda's principal goal is to overthrow the Saudi government.

                    But Al Qaeda is an international franchiser, and it's Pakistani franchisees hate India most of all, just as its Chechen and other Caucasian franchisees despise Russia. Uighur and other Islamic peoples in Xinjiang of course are a big potential problem for the Chinese.

                    China has so far avoided a major terror attack -- although they were clearly quite worried about one during the Olympics -- but both India and Russia have suffered just as much as the USA from Islamic-ideological terrorism.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by paintgun View Post
                      I live in a country that has had a first hand experience from terror threats and attacks. Where the US is not very popular and the seeds of fundamentalism is growing very real. Where half educated people can easily be agitated by their clerics and radicals.
                      The impression we had here in the USA was that the US (and Australia) were the principal actual providers of tsunami relief ti Banda Aceh. Do folks in Indonesia dispute that, ignore it, or discount it?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by zara View Post
                        Thats the most sensible argument Ive heard yet.
                        Brown's proposal sounds good but has low probability of actually succeeding.

                        Take all the poor countries in the world, find the proportion where the governing authorities are actually motivated to improve governance and increase prosperity as Brown assumes. I will be very generous and say 50%.

                        Now take those countries and figure out the ones where the societal and cultural conditions allow for Western style prosperity to take hold. Let's say another 50%.

                        Now take those newly prosperous countries and find the proportion of the population who are happy about the changes. Let's say 75%.

                        That gives us: 50% x 50% x 75% = 18.75%, or 375 million people assuming that there are 2 billion poor people in the world.

                        Let's say that it takes 30 years for prosperity to take hold.

                        Thus, under optimistic assumptions, after spending $50 billion * 30 = $1.5 trillion over 30 years, we've secured ~18.75% of the world's poor against terrorism.

                        Unfortunately, that's not the entire story:

                        Let's say that in the countries where we meet good success, the Westernization of their countries has pissed off the 1% lunatic fringe who will resort to terrorism:

                        That would give 50% x 50% x 1% = 0.25% or ~ 1 million potential new terrorists and supporters. Let's assume just 1% of that population actually become terrorists per year. That would give 10,000 terrorists per year who can go and wreck havoc now that their societies are fully integrated with the West.

                        These 10,000 guys per year can go get trained at the 50% + 25% = 75% of countries where Brown's plan didn't work. That's too pessimistic because they would need a permissive environment and militants who can train and shelter them until they are ready to go blow up airplanes.

                        Let's assume that 10% of people in 10% of those 75% still poor countries are radicalized to support terrorism.

                        That gives 75%x10% x 10% = .75% of the world's poor population who are active supporters of terrorism (15 million people).

                        Let's assume that 10% of those people are guys who would actually go out and be something like the Taliban:

                        Thus, .75% x 10% = .075 % of 2 billion people -> 1.5 million militants.

                        Thus, after spending 30 years, 1.5 trillion dollars, Brown's plan would provide the world with:

                        375 million new happy non-terrorists
                        10,000 new Westernized terrorists per year who could find refuge and train with
                        7.5% of the poor countries in the world, supported by
                        ~ 15 million people and actively protected by
                        ~ 1.5 million militants.

                        Sounds like the world we know??
                        Last edited by citanon; 06 Jan 10,, 21:34.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kasmir View Post
                          Al Qaeda proper is quite focused in opposing the US presence in Arab lands and against the very existence of Israel. You could even more narrowly argue that Al Qaeda's principal goal is to overthrow the Saudi government. ...
                          Driving the Americans out of Saudi Arabia where Mecca is located has been the early aim of Osama BL. This has been a good rallying point. But it is by now too narrow.

                          By now al Qaeda has very much broaden the fight to be global and long term, attacking the people, the interest and the supporters of US, and the other countries of the Christian West.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Merlin View Post
                            By now al Qaeda has very much broaden the fight to be global and long term, attacking the people, the interest and the supporters of US, and the other countries of the Christian West.
                            al Qaeda has declared war on Russia (Chechnya), China (Xinjiang), and India (Kashmir, actually all of India in order to recreate the Mughal Empire).

                            In the first part, al Qaeda has reduced their activities against both Russia and China who have no qualms about extermination campaigns. People ain't shot but freezing in the cold amounts to the same thing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kasmir View Post
                              The impression we had here in the USA was that the US (and Australia) were the principal actual providers of tsunami relief ti Banda Aceh. Do folks in Indonesia dispute that, ignore it, or discount it?
                              Ignored? No. Discounted and disputed much? Yes.

                              Indonesia is often touted as a success story of a Moslem country with large moderate Moslem population, which is true, but there also exist a smaller minority of extremists and radicals, often preaching and spreading their fundamentalist views rhetorics in the plain view of the public.

                              But Indonesia will not be another Pakistan, at least not in any near future
                              As long as the country remains secular and the people (the elites) well educated and opiniated.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X