Jim Stillman
Randy Inman
M-KazPentagon advisors say “War on Terror” wrong approach
July 31st 2008 14:06
Almost two years ago, I posted two pieces on another site, suggesting that a “War on Terror” was the wrong approach, a misuse of the concept of War and a policy that would not succeed.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Two months ago, in June, the respective positions and campaigns of Senator McCain and Obama were made clear by the candidates, each side accusing the other of embracing a policy that would put the country at risk of more terrorist attacks in the future. Senator Obama had stated that the people responsible for the World Trade Center attack were prosecuted as criminals (with one exception) after a fair trial. The Senator had expressed support for the Supreme Court decision granting detainees the right to seek habeas corpus hearings.
The GOP reaction was swift. As reported in the June 18, 2008, Washington Post:
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani joined in:
"Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security."
Now, the Rand Corporation, a “think-tank” used by the United States to advise the military and civilian agencies on policy and approaches to issues, an organization universally respected as being non-partisan, has issued a report stating that the “War on Terror” is ineffective and will not reduce the threats caused by terrorist organizations!
Oops!
The Report summary is unambiguous. It would be best to treat terrorist threats by conventional police and intelligence agencies, not the military.
“All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa'ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Policymakers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. The authors report that religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups and rarely achieve their objectives. The largest groups achieve their goals more often and last longer than the smallest ones do. Finally, groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and less likely to have religion as their motivation. The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa'ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida.”
As I, and many others, have pointed out, there cannot be a “War on Terrorism” because of the consequences of such a definition. Are we to hold the detainees until the “end” of the “war”? When will the “end” be known; there is no battleship Missouri on which to hold a formal surrender.
We are in a long struggle with the forces of terror and fanaticism. The battle must be won on ideological grounds and the individual attacks by al Qaida and others must be met with effective policing and intelligence agency, not brigades of troops. Use of military force will only result in loss of prestige and good will throughout the world, whereas police and intelligence operations will reap benefits.
We can protect our nation without rejecting those values and practices that make us a beacon of freedom. It’s time we acted in a manner consistent with our professed values. The denial of habeas corpus, the use of water-boarding and other torture techniques, the practice of rendition, and warrantless searches and wiretaps all bring us down to the moral equivalent of those who hate us.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
Two months ago, in June, the respective positions and campaigns of Senator McCain and Obama were made clear by the candidates, each side accusing the other of embracing a policy that would put the country at risk of more terrorist attacks in the future. Senator Obama had stated that the people responsible for the World Trade Center attack were prosecuted as criminals (with one exception) after a fair trial. The Senator had expressed support for the Supreme Court decision granting detainees the right to seek habeas corpus hearings.
The GOP reaction was swift. As reported in the June 18, 2008, Washington Post:
"He's advocating a policy of delusion," Randy Scheunemann, a McCain adviser, said of Obama (D-Ill.). Former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. said Obama's attitude "ignores that we are in a war against terrorism."
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani joined in:
"Barack Obama appears to believe that terrorists should be treated like criminals -- a belief that underscores his fundamental lack of judgment regarding our national security."
Now, the Rand Corporation, a “think-tank” used by the United States to advise the military and civilian agencies on policy and approaches to issues, an organization universally respected as being non-partisan, has issued a report stating that the “War on Terror” is ineffective and will not reduce the threats caused by terrorist organizations!
Oops!
The Report summary is unambiguous. It would be best to treat terrorist threats by conventional police and intelligence agencies, not the military.
“All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. This has significant implications for dealing with al Qa'ida and suggests fundamentally rethinking post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism strategy: Policymakers need to understand where to prioritize their efforts with limited resources and attention. The authors report that religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups and rarely achieve their objectives. The largest groups achieve their goals more often and last longer than the smallest ones do. Finally, groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist and less likely to have religion as their motivation. The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa'ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa'ida.”
As I, and many others, have pointed out, there cannot be a “War on Terrorism” because of the consequences of such a definition. Are we to hold the detainees until the “end” of the “war”? When will the “end” be known; there is no battleship Missouri on which to hold a formal surrender.
We are in a long struggle with the forces of terror and fanaticism. The battle must be won on ideological grounds and the individual attacks by al Qaida and others must be met with effective policing and intelligence agency, not brigades of troops. Use of military force will only result in loss of prestige and good will throughout the world, whereas police and intelligence operations will reap benefits.
We can protect our nation without rejecting those values and practices that make us a beacon of freedom. It’s time we acted in a manner consistent with our professed values. The denial of habeas corpus, the use of water-boarding and other torture techniques, the practice of rendition, and warrantless searches and wiretaps all bring us down to the moral equivalent of those who hate us.
| 38 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Smooth Political