Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragonlich
How do you know that a military strike here and there will not have a long-term positive effect? Just downplaying it as "short-sighted" doesn't really cut it this time. Fact of the matter is that there are countries that are unable or unwilling to put a stop to known terrorist activities. If these countries can't stop it, someone else has to. And frankly, I don't care one bit whether the locals there will get upset - if we didn't strike, *our* locals would be killed. Perhaps the locals there will start to understand that there are consequences to their (in)actions, and they'll change.
Of course, I prefer a more balanced approach, where pre-emtive strikes are combined with long-term strategy. I won't ignore the Islamic extremists, nor their massive support in some parts of the world. In my view, if you support terrorism, you should pay the price; In the long term, I prefer a "if you *don't* support terrorism, you will get a better life" strategy.
|
Well the same could be said about how one could prove military strikes here and there would help in the long term if at all.
I think the problem is that much of this and even Iraq is made in *response* to terrorist actions. And often times, that problem creates the issue of creating possibly candidates for terrorism out of people who previously had little to no reason to.
And really, there isn't honestly much that locals can do in terms of action against terrorists. One could say, hand em weapons, and fight - but of course, they could always turn them right around on us (see: Soviets in Afghanistan).
And one cannot ignore locals being upset - that is a big problem in the long run. In fact, that damages the effectiveness of long term military strikes. If you upset locals, which are they more likely to be upset about? The people dropping the bombs, or the targets of those bombs. As with most people, blame would be on those dropping the bombs.
The bigger thing about terrorism and this problem in general is how deeply rooted it is in human psychology. If one punches you in the face, how many here would probably react by wanting to punch back? Many would take it as a challenge and fight back, even if the punch was intended to your friend standing by you.
It might sound irrational on here and it might sound illogical and a big "no, I wouldn't" could be said - but honestly, think back to even high school and fights... many people would fight for things in retrospect seem foolish, but in the moment, the animal inside is released.
On the issue of "not supporting terrorism for a better life" - throw out Iraq for now and put it in other nations. What if those people honestly have a good life and aren't affected by terrorists nearby? What if those people are the average joes of those countries and aren't affected by them and thus aren't even associated or don't even support them?
What if fighting back meant a death squad would pick up your family and execute them? Or what if, that government itself, has little to no resources to fighting clandestine fighters which can weave in and out of the population, and hide as criminals. They could be like the local mafia in many places - they run the shots in local areas, and can escape from trouble with ease.
And I personally think that is where the current doctrine of fighting "organized" terrorism fails - you can't necessarily destroy an infrastructure or organization if that organization isn't like a government or group in the traditional sense. They may be rooted far deeper or far different from anything bombs being dropped can destroy. In other words, it may not be a tangible target you go out and seek to destroy.
And again, as stated above, ignoring the locals anger will only feed those with more volunteers. If that group isn't there, someone else will take up the call, so long as the will to is there. That is probably the overall biggest beef - more force isn't going to stop the possible new recruits and those affected who once had nothing to do with anything but suddenly seek revenge.
Its those normal people thrust into extraordinary situations that go do extreme things. Its true among soldiers - regular citizens thrust into far-from-regular situations (battle for instance) and doing extraordinary things (heroism under fire is just one such example).
My personal belief? Do something similar to what the Saudis and Israelis have done - Saudis by promising amnesty to those who turn themselves in (lower ranking members, create an incentive to quit, remove the real base of strength in organizations) while you use the Israeli method of intelligence agents and special operations to destroy officials and, in other words, create your own fear in them to shake them down.
That also eliminates massive collaterals that affect the long run.