Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

the_ref · 08-26-2005, 04:12 PM

I believe part of our problem is one of definitions.

We are currently engaged in a War on Terror(ism), or possibly a Conflict Against Religious Extremism. In either case, we are treating the matter as if it were a territorial conflict, rather than an idealogical one.

If were were, for example, in a war against Iraq, we would be in an easy position - invade Iraq, dismantle their army, and all is more or less well, aside from the usual problems of any conflict such as casualties.

The enemy we have roughly identified, however, holds no specific territory, has at best a vague model of leadership, and is funded indirectly through multiple channels. Equally it is an enemy brought together and kept together by perception more than anything else. By invading a nation, a nation that may or may not be directly backing such an enemy, we actually lend credence to the notion that we are at war against a religious group.

Our armed forces are well equipped to deal with territorial conflicts and specific targetted struggles; they are not well equipped to try and extinguish a meme, which is pretty much what they are facing.

Any attack by US/Coalition forces will be seen as an overreaction to the strength of the group we are nominally fighting against. We will be hurting many people who are not members of the terrorist groups, and through this we lend the enemy further propoganda points. The terrorist "organization", a semi-coordinated but ultimately very loose coalition, banks on our overreaction. Each time we kills civilians, bomb a school, or otherwise strike more than what would be considered a justifiable target they are able to turn this around and point to our overzealousness. The terrorists do not need to win on a military level, only on an ideological and propoganda level.

We, as a nation, are not prepared for the type of war we would need to face. Instead of dealing with numbers of people killed, territory gained or lost, or other common measurements of a purely military conflict, we would need to reschool ourselves in terms of long-term commitment to low-level conflict. Few of the successes in this instance would be worthy of lead news on CNN, but they would be what is needed - a more stealthy campaign against a stealthy opponent. Equally, we would need to fight fire with fire - we would need an active propoganda machine in place that counters terrorist claims, not in an angry tone of rebuttal, but rather getting ahead of the game, showing how our workings to rebuild their infrastructure are in the local people's interest, as opposed to the workings of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

We are, unfortunately, not acting in this manner. Instead we still concentrate in terms of people killed, territory gained and lost, etc. This looks good on the news and would work in the short-term, but ultimately means that we will be bled by small attacks, the sort of thing that frustrates and disheartens the American public.

Are we winning the War on Terror? No. And the reason we are losing is because we are trying to define the conflict in terms of a 19th century territorial conflict when it is actually a 21st century ideological conflict. We are trying to win battles; they are trying to control the mental and emotional debate. In the end, our opponents are better placed for their message to come across, thus they are in a better position to win, both by our measurements and their own.

08-26-2005, 04:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
the_ref Upright	I believe part of our problem is one of definitions. We are currently engaged in a War on Terror(ism), or possibly a Conflict Against Religious Extremism. In either case, we are treating the matter as if it were a territorial conflict, rather than an idealogical one. If were were, for example, in a war against Iraq, we would be in an easy position - invade Iraq, dismantle their army, and all is more or less well, aside from the usual problems of any conflict such as casualties. The enemy we have roughly identified, however, holds no specific territory, has at best a vague model of leadership, and is funded indirectly through multiple channels. Equally it is an enemy brought together and kept together by perception more than anything else. By invading a nation, a nation that may or may not be directly backing such an enemy, we actually lend credence to the notion that we are at war against a religious group. Our armed forces are well equipped to deal with territorial conflicts and specific targetted struggles; they are not well equipped to try and extinguish a meme, which is pretty much what they are facing. Any attack by US/Coalition forces will be seen as an overreaction to the strength of the group we are nominally fighting against. We will be hurting many people who are not members of the terrorist groups, and through this we lend the enemy further propoganda points. The terrorist "organization", a semi-coordinated but ultimately very loose coalition, banks on our overreaction. Each time we kills civilians, bomb a school, or otherwise strike more than what would be considered a justifiable target they are able to turn this around and point to our overzealousness. The terrorists do not need to win on a military level, only on an ideological and propoganda level. We, as a nation, are not prepared for the type of war we would need to face. Instead of dealing with numbers of people killed, territory gained or lost, or other common measurements of a purely military conflict, we would need to reschool ourselves in terms of long-term commitment to low-level conflict. Few of the successes in this instance would be worthy of lead news on CNN, but they would be what is needed - a more stealthy campaign against a stealthy opponent. Equally, we would need to fight fire with fire - we would need an active propoganda machine in place that counters terrorist claims, not in an angry tone of rebuttal, but rather getting ahead of the game, showing how our workings to rebuild their infrastructure are in the local people's interest, as opposed to the workings of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. We are, unfortunately, not acting in this manner. Instead we still concentrate in terms of people killed, territory gained and lost, etc. This looks good on the news and would work in the short-term, but ultimately means that we will be bled by small attacks, the sort of thing that frustrates and disheartens the American public. Are we winning the War on Terror? No. And the reason we are losing is because we are trying to define the conflict in terms of a 19th century territorial conflict when it is actually a 21st century ideological conflict. We are trying to win battles; they are trying to control the mental and emotional debate. In the end, our opponents are better placed for their message to come across, thus they are in a better position to win, both by our measurements and their own. __________________ "Jack! You've debauched my sloth!"