Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - war on terrorism

gibingus · 03-16-2004, 01:15 PM

the big failure in the "war on terror" has been the inability to identify a clear strategy to disable the enemy.

once again, nations wage war to destroy or deprive other nations of economic and human resources or to control those resources. when the resources are depleted on one side, that side surrenders and the war is over. even before the era of modern warfare, ancient armies attacked civilians and civilian resources. in the u.s. civil war, sherman's march through georgia and grant's strategy of 'total war' brought this concept to new level. the nuclear obliteration of the japanaese cities of nagasaki and hiroshima took targeting civilians to a level beyond.

the idea of war crimes, rules of engagement, and other such conventions are largely preposterous. the age old quotes are more true: to the victor go the spoils, all is fair in love and war, etc.

the challenge in the war on terror is to determine how to fight a group that is not a nation-state, has no means of production like a formalized state, and subsequently has no formal armed forces. there is no question that terrorist attacks can go unchecked, the question is where and how to apply that check.

bush was on a very good track when they started with afghanistan, if a nation harbors terrorist organizations it either co-operates with the US in the removal of that organization or it is considered in league. simple enough: diplomacy, intellegence, and then measured use of force. this all fell apart with the iraq invasion, and it has since lost focus in afghanistan and -most importantly- pakistan.

with total diplomatic buy in and full military commitment, the war on al queda should have ended -successfully- a long time ago. it would have set a precedent for dealing with this new type of threat that would have served to keep terrorist actions confined to their local areas. instead, we have adopted an old line cold war mindset, which in the end is only good for making contractors wealthy by consuming more munitions, destroying more infrastructure that we have to rebuild, and keeping active forces deployed indefinitely.

03-16-2004, 01:15 PM	#35 (permalink)
gibingus Insane Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W	the big failure in the "war on terror" has been the inability to identify a clear strategy to disable the enemy. once again, nations wage war to destroy or deprive other nations of economic and human resources or to control those resources. when the resources are depleted on one side, that side surrenders and the war is over. even before the era of modern warfare, ancient armies attacked civilians and civilian resources. in the u.s. civil war, sherman's march through georgia and grant's strategy of 'total war' brought this concept to new level. the nuclear obliteration of the japanaese cities of nagasaki and hiroshima took targeting civilians to a level beyond. the idea of war crimes, rules of engagement, and other such conventions are largely preposterous. the age old quotes are more true: to the victor go the spoils, all is fair in love and war, etc. the challenge in the war on terror is to determine how to fight a group that is not a nation-state, has no means of production like a formalized state, and subsequently has no formal armed forces. there is no question that terrorist attacks can go unchecked, the question is where and how to apply that check. bush was on a very good track when they started with afghanistan, if a nation harbors terrorist organizations it either co-operates with the US in the removal of that organization or it is considered in league. simple enough: diplomacy, intellegence, and then measured use of force. this all fell apart with the iraq invasion, and it has since lost focus in afghanistan and -most importantly- pakistan. with total diplomatic buy in and full military commitment, the war on al queda should have ended -successfully- a long time ago. it would have set a precedent for dealing with this new type of threat that would have served to keep terrorist actions confined to their local areas. instead, we have adopted an old line cold war mindset, which in the end is only good for making contractors wealthy by consuming more munitions, destroying more infrastructure that we have to rebuild, and keeping active forces deployed indefinitely. __________________ if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.