Terrorism after OEF/OIF

I am going to make a not so bold prediction that we will see a significant increase in terrorist activity against American interests as the combat in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. I say not so bold because of the historic patterns we have seen from Afghanistan (vs. Russia) Bosnia, Chechnya were trained jihadists become available to create terror far from the conflict that they began in.

The question is this; are the terrorist strikes going to be primarily against US interests overseas (embassy bombings and attacks against US companies overseas), or against targets in the US itself (9/11)? The next question is what is the best method for preventing/reducing these attacks? Do we continue on aggressive overseas adventures that will continue to recruit new jihadists, but occupy them so they are less likely to strike elsewhere; do we switch to an international law enforcement model, or other?

I will advocate strongly against the continued overseas adventures, at some point they must end, and then there will be plenty of trained jihadists looking for targets. I have some ideas, but I would like to defer to the expertise of the council, and see if my thoughts match up.
Reed

"The question is this; are the terrorist strikes going to be primarily against US interests overseas (embassy bombings and attacks against US companies overseas), or against targets in the US itself (9/11)? The next question is what is the best method for preventing/reducing these attacks? Do we continue on aggressive overseas adventures that will continue to recruit new jihadists, but occupy them so they are less likely to strike elsewhere; do we switch to an international law enforcement model, or other?"

1. US Targets overseas are the most cost effective for our enemies.

2. Target hardening & human collection within the AO would be my recommendation to reduce/prevent, or at the very least predict/disrupt/delay.

3. Must feel that the International Law Enforcement model is most likely.

4. This process is, of course, in the process of ending itself as it has been.

5. Less likely but possible is a treaty or unilateral cease-fire, some type of "Viet-namisation" or Declaration of Victory, in advance of withdrawals on all fronts.

New administration efforts toward a type of detente, i.e. mentioning "Muslims" in inaugural address, the first executive interview, letter to Pres. Ahmadinejead, greater engagement diplomatically, may serve to de-escalate in certain regards.

I will not comment on my perceived long term effects of such activities, as I think they speak for themselves.

I wonder if your analysis takes into account the lurking variable of Israeli involvement in these "zones of influence", to use a rather out-dated phraseology.

I understand and respect your advocation against the never-endingness of certain adventurism.

Perhaps the collective wisdom of certain of the professionals here would also be willing to address my "Israel variable" if you will, in this equation.

Do you agree that there is some degree of correlation ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

1. I wonder if your analysis takes into account the lurking variable of Israeli involvement in these "zones of influence", to use a rather out-dated phraseology.
   
2. Perhaps the collective wisdom of certain of the professionals here would also be willing to address my "Israel variable" if you will, in this equation.

---

I am afraid I don't understand to what you are referring, and I am somewhat versed in this area, so any simpler explanation would be welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am afraid I don't understand to what you are referring, and I am somewhat versed in this area, so any simpler explanation would be welcome.

---

Roger, sir.

In other language:

Will having a "land-for-peace-in-Middle-East" US State Department mean nothing with the resurgence of a militant hardline government in Israe ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bullmoose Bailey

Will having a "land-for-peace-in-Middle-East" US State Department mean nothing with the resurgence of a militant hardline government in Israe ?

---

Land for peace is a dead as a Dodo, or should be. Giving back land does not create peace - as recent history proves - so a failed experiment, which came at great cost to all sides. Sustainable security, at sustainable cost is the likely reality, and the achievable end state.

The US needs to stop talking about Middle East Peace. It's never going to happen and that's OK. People need to realise this.

What militant hardline government? It's Likud! - pussycats.
Yisrael Beiteinu are the guys you need to worry about.

In criminal law they speak in terms of "motive" and "opportunity." My concern is that in the GWOT's relentless pursuit of the tactic of terrorism; i.e., reduction of opportunity to commit terrorist acts, we have through the manner of our engagement actually increased motive to conduct such acts against us.

So, once we take our thumb off the top of this bottle of OIF/OEF we have been shaking so vigorously, I would suspect all of that motive to manifest itself in enhanced activity against America and American interests.

This, of course, can be mitigated tremendously by retailoring our engagement to be more focused on reducing motive.

One classic example is Iran. We are so hardset on denying the opportunity to them to produce and use WMD, that we seek that end in such ways that increase their motive to actually use such devices against us if they ever do succeed in devloping such weapons. Another example is extreme violence directed at the Pashto populace of AFG/PAK in efforts to gain their support to their respective governments...

Such considerations are far more important in populace-based insurgent warfare than in state-based conventional warfare; non-state intities have far less to fear in terms of being held accountable through retaliation. The tools of DIME designed to engage states are inadequate to the task.

So, without new tools and a new approach, yes, there will be increased activity once we let up on the "suppressive fires" of OIF/OEF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

So, without new tools and a new approach, yes, there will be increased activity once we let up on the "suppressive fires" of OIF/OEF.

---

I'm inclined to believe that the worldwide 2002-2008 level of terrorism will continue with no increase and instead a gradual decline to pre-1972 levels -- terrorism has been with us for millennia, it is not going away -- by about 2030-40. That prediction is based on nothing more than my being old and have watched the cycles of the world for a while. There are cycles, they weave in strange ways but there's a pattern of sorts if you pay attention. :wry:

We will remain the principal target for not only terrorism but for many other forms of attack -- and invective -- simply because we are big and inviting. Not only would be terrorists, certain disaffected communities and hard core Socialists who think we are terrible and the root of most evil in the world will come at us in one way or another but many of our 'friends' would love to see us stumble or be humiliated and will, as they long have, work below the table to achieve that. All that has been true in my observation since the end of WW II. It has not changed over the years though the depth and extent does vary as we do -- or do not do -- certain things.

We have annoyed many with our approach to a lot of things, no question. :cool:

We have also encouraged many by not pursuing things -- and there should be no question on that score. A surprising number of folks out there see 'turning the other cheek' and 'compromise' as weakness.

Determining the correct approach is never simple and there is never a one best answer...

As we have been told there will be a 'new approach' and indications are that at least superficially that may be true, what that approach might do to either your or my prediction remains to be seen... :D