War on Terrorism, Strategic Overview

[ruauman2]

I have been following the "karl rove" thread and it got me thinking. So, I started to do some searching on the web regarding terrorism and our current efforts to stop or at least reduce it. I was going to post this link into the "karl rove" thread but I think this overview is not about politics but more about our current policies. I think it was written in July of 2003 with some editting after that date. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this overview. It is quite a long read but I think you'll find that it offers an in-depth rationale for some of the "foreign policy" we have been engaged in the last few years.

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Let me know what you think.

[37L1]

Very interesting read.

Like to hear opinions on this from both sides of the street.

[bestatchess]

Interesting. But I think the main problem at the moment is that we are not attacking the suicide bomber - terrorist problem at its source: the radical clerics & mosques that are producing a steady stream of suicide bombers & terrorists. This will continue indefinitely unless we act to take out the terrorist factories.

[ruauman2]

Originally Posted by bestatchess

Interesting. But I think the main problem at the moment is that we are not attacking the suicide bomber - terrorist problem at its source: the radical clerics & mosques that are producing a steady stream of suicide bombers & terrorists. This will continue indefinitely unless we act to take out the terrorist factories.

Good point.

It will be interesting to see how Great Britian handles their problem in light of the recent attacks there. I think Saudi Arabia is a big problem, maybe even the cornerstone of terrorism. They have let the clerics and even teachers 'indoctrinate' the youth into Wahabi teachings for such a long time and financial support for terror from Saudi Arabia is huge. It is past time these governments got "off the fence" and/or even the downright endorsement of these type of teachings. I fully support freedom of speech but once you use your speech (read as brainwashing) as a means of creating a weapon system (in this case a suicide bomber) to use at your command or an instrument for someone else to use, laws preventing these actions need to enforced or adopted into the framework of each countries justice system. Teachings/preaching of 'jihad' should be outlawed! This would sound like a good place for the UN to jump in and hold countries accountable if it wasn't such an ineffectual body.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by ruauman2

Good point.

It will be interesting to see how Great Britian handles their problem in light of the recent attacks there. I think Saudi Arabia is a big problem, maybe even the cornerstone of terrorism. They have let the clerics and even teachers 'indoctrinate' the youth into Wahabi teachings for such a long time and financial support for terror from Saudi Arabia is huge. It is past time these governments got "off the fence" and/or even the downright endorsement of these type of teachings. I fully support freedom of speech but once you use your speech (read as brainwashing) as a means of creating a weapon system (in this case a suicide bomber) to use at your command or an instrument for someone else to use, laws preventing these actions need to enforced or adopted into the framework of each countries justice system. Teachings/preaching of 'jihad' should be outlawed! This would sound like a good place for the UN to jump in and hold countries accountable if it wasn't such an ineffectual body.

I agree.

http://www.titantalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=12

[Bassomatic]

Good analysis, albeit a bit slanted to the right. Some very good points made, but I cannot agree with all of them.

I do not agree with the comment that suicide bombers are the problem. the problem, like the article states, is much more complicated and deep-rooted. It is something cultural, and with the extremist sect of Islam. Suicide bombers are a weapon / tool for the terrorists to use in their jihad. Although, destroying the locations where suicide bombers are created and trained, certainly would help the fight.

The article is refreshing to read, because it does look at the conflict in a positive manner, with a lot of positive outcomes instead of the constant barrage of crap we get from the media.

[Orange Crush]

Anybody read

"Imperial Hubris"
by Anonymous (CIA officer Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the C.I.A. who is still serving in a senior counterterrorism post at the agency and headed the bin Laden station from 1996 to 1999).

[ruauman2]

After reading your post I looked around and read a short review of Imperial Hubris but I think I have the idea behind his story...that many big mistakes were made. I agree, many were made and only time will truly define the magnitude of the mistakes. I hope that we have learned from them for future ventures...the optimist in me wants to believe that we have but my pessimistic side is pretty strong these days.

And before I climb out on a limb let me state for the records that I completely believe that the highest office in our country has not, in the past, brought the best candidates forward to lead and that Bush and Kerry illustrate my point perfectly. These two were/are a joke as leaders!

I think it is easy for people to sit back and claim after the fact that mistakes were made, it is armchair quarterbacking pure and simple. I also think that any politician that tries to say he knows what needs to be done and will avoid mistakes is a "snake-oil salesmen" of the worst kind. I do think that something different needs to be done and that this "strategic overview" alludes to a change in foriegn policy that past policies did not address. The old policy of appeasement has been a huge mistake that many administrations fell into. Appeasement does not work and neither does monetary support for undemocratic governments. I'm willing to try just about anything different. Someone on this forum has a saying in their signature that states something to the effect that "insanity is trying to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results". I'm paraphrasing of course but you get the idea. Many people say that these foreign policy actions we are engaged in will ultimately bring even more terror to our doorstep (and you can bet that if it happens, everyone of them will be on their soapbox screaming "I told you so"). I think that these people are coming after us regardless and will only leave us alone after we are degraded to living in a crappy little sandbox that is worse than the one they live in.

[smoketitan]

man thats a book Im still working on it, but I saw someone quote 37L1 from the other thread

Originally Posted by 37L1

It's way past time for the Muslim community to quit providing aid, shelter and support for people who do these things. They should publicly condemn these acts that are done in the name of their religion and ex-communicate those who practice this sort of violence on every day people who have very little to do with politics. They should report those who have provided support and sympathy for these cowards. If they don't, I am very concerned that they will help contribute to any back-lash that will occur as a result of more of these sort of incidents that are sure to come.

Where are the Mullahs and what are they saying? Al-Jazeera and other Arab/Muslim media?

I'll never forget the celebrating in Palestine after the twin towers were knocked down. We're supposed to give them money and aid for their people?

WTF?

they wont report or condemn the actions against the US or Britain becuase quiet as kept, they are fighting for what THEY believe is correct. These people do not want US intervention and residency. Basic reality, the US is chrsitian based and Iraq/middle east will always be islamic --the two are ideologically diametrically opposed once you get to the extremes poles. the middle ground the are pretty much the same if you study both, but thats not what were are dealing with

the current power structure of the us is by no means moderate christian, and the same goes for the agressors in al qaida

and no im not saying the US are terrorist or what not!!, all im saying is that you are dealing with two entities that are coming from the extreme poles of both religions.

Do people really think you can BRING DEMOCRACY to a sovereign nation by force? I dont think so. hasnt happend once in world history

well see how long this new iraq gov last

I dont get how folks can condemn the actions of force of another country when , the US is being actively aggressive in the middle east. I dont condone the actions of suicide bombers one bit, but a war is a war, and in all honesty behind closed doors anything goes ( ie tortue in abu gharaib and gitmo) its just the way it goes in war

and if all you have is sticks to fight with, you find the biggest stick right?

so I sure hope GW and the other allies expect it to continue cause it will , you cant kill a kids dad/mom etc and have that kid grow up 20 yrs later and not want some retribution. that type of hate does not die

hate the actions cool, and killing non military bystanders sucks, but Im sure that there are civilian deaths in iraq,and afghanistan.

and those images of the people cheering after the twin towers coming down were not cheering for the demise of the towers, that was a edited clip

google it up

and Palestine does not recieve gobs of aid from the US, israel does--the US is their largest supporter by far---but thats a whole other thread

and ask the question on the flip were US folks happy in there homes when saadaam palace was toppled? and can we assume US folks will be cheering when and if osama is ever caught? its not like the us has clen hands in this historically speaking. some of thsoe poeple who lost families in desert stron I assume have a right to be a little upset

and were there any tears shed in the US for all the images of the gnarled up civilians after the first initial attack. EXTREMELY sad yes, but I assume most chalked it up to it being a casualty of war--who knows

I sure hope that GW and staff are planning a better exit and containment plan than what currently is going on, as I dont think any country can continue alloting the number of tropps, equipment and 30B dollars every year

GW only has three more years,what happens after that? I just hope they are working on something better

now back to the read sorry for the book of my own

[AUUSN]

............

[ruauman2]

No problem "smoke", thank you for sharing your thoughts. You make some very good points.

[ruauman2]

AU...I like your photo you attached. I assume this is Karl getting the last laugh.

[AUUSN]

................

[Orange Crush]

Originally Posted by ruauman2

After reading your post I looked around and read a short review of Imperial Hubris but I think I have the idea behind his story...that many big mistakes were made. I agree, many were made and only time will truly define the magnitude of the mistakes. I hope that we have learned from them for future ventures...the optimist in me wants to believe that we have but my pessimistic side is pretty strong these days.

”The reason we've made these mistakes, he argues, is that we fail to understand that bin Laden doesn't hate us because of our freedom. Or, rather, while he does hate the licentiousness and modernity that the U.S. represents, it's not what compels him to declare war on us. Nor does an anti-modernist bent explain bin Laden's appeal across the Muslim world. Instead, it's what Anonymous identifies as six points bin Laden repeatedly cites in his communiqués:

"U.S. support for Israel that keeps the Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall;

U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian peninsula;

U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan;

U.S. support for Russia, India and China against their Muslim militants;

U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low;

U.S. support for apostate, corrupt and tyrannical Muslim governments."

Combined with his charismatic biography, bin Laden's strategic success has been to frame these arguments through a Koranic prism, "to convince everyone that U.S. policy is deliberately anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic," he says. Bin Laden's critique presents in resonant Islamic terminology a coherent jihadist explanation for practically everything Muslims can find offensive about the U.S.--the most deadly slippery slope there is. And the more Americans insist on treating bin Laden's anger with the U.S. as a pure hatred of freedom, the less equipped we'll be to answer him in a battle of ideas.”

Or said in another way:

“One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles.” - Sun Tzu

[PHOEBISIS]

Interesting stuff,and certainly makes some sense in respect to Arab Muslims.Unfortunately most Muslims aren't Arabs;I would guess that no more than 200 Million of the worlds Muslims(1 Billion) are Arabs-800 million aren't Arabs,and they hate the USA also.
It uses Japan-Germany as the template for the "Shining Beacon" strategy-it worked there,so it should work in Iraq-Middle East.It ignores the fact that Japan and Germany were beaten into the dust before they were offered"another way".We have only occupied one Arab country-Iraq-and we really haven't beaten it into the dust in the same way that Japan was.We are hoping that Iraq will become democratic-a "nice place to live" and the rest of the Arab-ME population will see that and decide"let's kick out our tyrants and dictators" and become democratic also.If the majority really "ruled" in those countries,it would be easy.It doesn't,and it isn't.History is absolutely filled with examples of determined well armed , well motivated minorities dominating the majority.Heck,you could even look to our political parties and see the same thing.The Dems are dominated by a minority of AB rights,gay rights,BS rights groups that are a tiny minority of the folks who vote democratic because they think the Dems will support their economic interests-SS,healthcare,security net etc.
I certainly hope the Shining Beacon strategy works.I don't see a historical precedent for what we are doing-of course,that doen't mean it won't work!We are stuck with it until we gain energy independence.If we had left Iraq alone,and just contained SH while working toward energy independence(maybe 15-20 years) we might have been better off.We could have then treated the Middle East as an unimportant backwater-like Africa.Well,it is too late for that now.f we pull out of Iraq oil prices will skyrocket,and our economy will tank.If our economy tanks then so will our military power.
Fingers crossed,hope it works.Charlie PS Nuclear plants,clean coal,growing energy etc are-should be our fallback plan.I think President Bush knows this-hence his pushing Nuke plants.