How do we fight terrorism?
 

I don't think we've had this discussion in a while, but it might be time to revisit it in light of what has happened in Spain.

Though the Bush administration, through the so-called "Bush doctrine," has promised to fight terrorists by going after the countries that support them. Afghanistan is the clearest example of this, and I don't think anybody will dispute that the Bush doctrine not only applied there, but also resulted in a good short term outcome (major damage to al Qaeda), and was the right thing to do. The situation over there right now is certainly grim, but it probably isn't much worse than during the Taliban.

I don't want to debate Iraq here, though I will say a few things about it. The administration framed the debate in terms of terrorism. The existence of Saddam enhanced the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks against the US. He offered financial support to terrorists in Israel (though that didn't really have any consequences for anti-American terrorists), and he probably had some non-nuclear unconventional weapons that he might some day put in the wrong hands. Moreover, his regime was stable. He had a son who could take over, and Iraq has oil wealth.

So in many ways, and invasion made sense, and was the right thing to do.

But, it does get to the point I want to make. The Bush doctrine (as a doctrine, and not as rationale for one or two wars/interventions) isn't sustainable, and just plain won't work. Look at the progression from Afghanistan to Iraq. Afghanistan was openly supporting the largest, most anti-American, and most dangerous terror network the world has ever seen. Iraq might have had unconventional weapons (nobody really knows if they still existed when we invaded), and gave some money to suicide bombers.

No country in the world comes close to Afghanistan circa 2000-2001 in supporting terrorism. As a counterterrorism strategy, the Bush doctrine won't work. The countries that "support terrorism" are too numerous, and support terrorism to such small degrees that invasions aren't justified. Iraq is just one war, and our military is already stretched too thin. I don't want to talk about how successful the nation building project there is, but I sure hope that we're able to produce a democracy that works.

Can we afford to do Iraq-like projects in 1, 2, or 5 more countries? I think the answer is no.

In fact, I think the Bush administration realizes this. They realize that the best approach isn't the hard-line rhetorical one they talk about on Meet the Press. It's actually a hybrid approach. It's a proactive approach. It's a multi-faceted approach. In my mind, successful counter-terrorism starts with the proposition that it's impossible to kill every terrorist, and that it's impossible to prevent every terrorist attack. The best way is to take measures that limit the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks that kill more than, say, 50 people. The Spanish attacks have shown that even small amounts of explosives and a little coordination can be very effective.

Taking measures that completely prevent attacks like that from happening are prohibitively expensive. There's sort of a rule of thumb about offense and defense, particularly as it pertains to technology. If you build a system that costs $10, and a new threat to the system emerges, you have to spend $100 on a system to protect the old system. We talked about this in debate a few years back. If you build a missile defense system for $500 billion, in a few years you'll be spending $5 trillion on a missile defense defense. All of this is a way of saying that we have to use our limited counter-terrorism resources in a way that produces the greatest benefit.

We freeze terroist funds, we require nations that support terrorists to get tough through the use of peaceful means, such as witholding aid. We make sure we're ready to deal with crises when they emerge. Cities must be prepared to deal with the consequences of an attack. We must better train law enforcement agents to prevent terrorism. It's all common sense type stuff, but the solution isn't a war every 2 years.

By eliminated its causes.

You can never, and I mean never, prevent violence with the application of more or more concentrated violence.

What you seem to neglect is the *potential* of an attack. One can see the results in Libya, and even Saudi-Arabia. Dictators everywhere will be asking themselves "will this support of terror, even though it's small, be enough to get invaded?"

So I'd say that in that sense, the Bush doctrine will work. It will make leaders think about the possible consequences of their actions or inactions, which is always good.

Of course it doesnt Dragonlich, has invading Iraq made the Iraqi people more peaceful? US soldiers are dying every day, Iraqi civilians are dying every day. The attack on Iraq has radically increased the danger in the world, and made Iraq a more volatile nation.

Hiroshima.

Nagasaki.

How did destroying two Japanese cities, at a time when Japan was defeated utterly and trying to negoiate its surrender, make the world a more peaceful place?

What i didn't understand was how bush intended to fight an idea

You made the absolute statement:


I gave two examples of concentrated violence that most definitely prevented more violence, specifically the deaths that would have been involved in the invasion of the Japanese islands.

Therefore, your original statement has been disproved and must either be revised or discarded.


Second, Please check your history.

Japan was not negotiating to surrender. They were preparing to resist the invasion by giving weapons to all citizens, including the women and children, and telling them to resist until death.

Edit to say: There were attempts to negotiate through the Swiss and Soviets, but they would not unconditionally surrender, the only terms the US would (rightly) accept at that point.

It is a fact that Japan was beaten, and was trying to negoiate an acceptable surrender. This, even you agree to.

Dropping atomic weapons on Japan at a time they were trying to surrender did not save lives, it cost lives. Diplomacy would have ended the war then... dropping the bombs (to ensure that Japan surrendered totally to the US before Russia could grab the North Island) was an act of violence that resulted in many more deaths than would have occured if diplomacy was used,

As an example of violence ending violence, it is a false example, because in this case the wat would have been ended by diplomacy, the atomic weapons were merely a brutal exercise in violence with no obvious peaceful end.

You are of course welcome to that opinion.

BTW, I am starting a new thread, rather than to continue to hijack this one.

I think that the Bush doctrine will probably act as a deterrent to nations that support terrorists, but I don't believe it will act as a deterrent at all to actual terrorists. Deterring actual terrorists, i.e. Al Quaida, is a battle that is slowly fought over decades. You capture or kill the ones you can, as fast as you can, and you somehow help to reach out and develop the conditions that produce terrorists mentality. The more communication, the more freedom, and the more culture you spread to that region, the more stable and moderate their attitudes will become. This takes decades I am sure, but it eventually works. All civilizations have had their barbaric times, and there will probably always be some that are, but this changes with the world getting smaller. Communication is the long term weapon. In the mean time, round 'em up!

Of course it does, Strange. Saddam has been removed from power, and is awaiting trial. The thing power-hungry dictators want most, pure power, has been taken away from him.

This sends a message to other power-hungry people in the world: if you do things the US deems bad, you might end up losing your power, or even your life. That is a very large stick; if we combine it with the carrot of more trade, and more power (Libya), we end up with a good olde carrot 'n stick combo, which is usually enough to get people to behave properly.

You *think* the world has become more dangerous; this isn't a fact. I'd say that although many common Muslims may feel angry at the US, they are not likely to be able to do something about it without some measure of official support. Remove that official support, and you seriously reduce the potential danger.

For example, if Saudi-Arabian officials remove the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian propaganda from their nation's school books (they will), and stop the official and unofficial (indirect) support of terror groups (they will), this will have a huge impact on the mind-set of young people there, and it will reduce the danger of these terror groups. If they then also actively search for people that do support terror, they will reduce the danger even more.

The US could take the Roman approach. For every terrorist attack on the US we launch attacks on major cities within the countries these terrorists hold dear. They blow up one of our boats, buildings, ect we kill 50,000 people indiscriminetly.

Of course I don't actually think this is feasible or ethical but it is no worse than what the terrorists are doing.

The Leviathan article I posted comes to mind again...

The Kingdom is doing all it can for America, and is hated for it by its people... every dead Iraqi, every bomb on Afghanistan.. brings us closer to the nuclear mushroom over London or New York... the wepons of destrcution are so powerful, so easy to create,... there is NO defence, the stick no longer works, the bomber ALWAYS gets through... the world is running out of time and the choice is peace of death.

But isn't the hate of the US bred by anti-US propaganda, spread by normal everyday people that can be imprisoned? Besides, I think people overestimate the "hatred" of the US. Just because a lot of vocal morons say they hate the US does not mean even a small portion of the whole population shares their sentiment. And even if they do, do these people hate the US enough to pick a fight they know they'll eventually lose?

One nuclear mushroom over London of New York isn't the end, it's merely the final straw that will end many a Muslim life.

No, the destruction of one city isnt the end, what you said, and the fact that so many people will feel the same, that is the end.

If the US didn't participate in terrorism, it might help. Also, closing military bases on Arab soil will also help tremedously.

I think the world as a whole should just leave the middle east, put a boycott on them that says nothing enters and nothing leaves until they learn to grow up.

We'll see how well off they are without support from the rest of the world.

<b>Scipio</b>: how about if America stopped actively making all suspected 'bogies' subservient to American will?

Or at least admit it when you're clearly wrong about the whole premise you went to war in Iraq on. I think its the arrogance you display that pisses people off...

Conclamo Ludus:

Exactly! The inherent structural problem with fighting terrorism is that a successful terrorist attack can be carried out by a very small number of people, and they have a rather large world to hide in.

tekaweni:

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I don't want to reply until I'm crystal clear on what you're point is. If you could elaborate, that would be wonderful.

I hope this isn't an attack against me! I'm assuming not, and if not, I agree that rhetoric matters. Insuffecient effort has been made to separate al Qaeda from the Arab and Muslim worlds. Like it or not, a lot of people look up to Bin Laden as a hero, and I'm not sure what we can do about it. We have to try something though. When normal people in Arab countries get that kind of propaganda, we're messing up somewhere.

I'd say that this will solve itself. There's a growing backlash in the Arab world against these people, precisely because they are now targeting Muslims too. I'd say that the majority of Muslims worldwide utterly hate this man and everything he stands for. It's the vocal minority that you see applauding his actions. And it's the job of the governments there to keep that minority in check.