Looking for info on Sri Lanka's defeat of the LTTE
I have to write a relatively short paper for a class on terrorism and terrorist groups (a problematic definition, I know). I have wide latitude on the subject and thought I would look at Sri Lanka's defeat of the LTTE and the employment of the "ruthless" approach. I mainly want to focus on the shift in strategy over the last decade, how they handled the international objections (human rights), and prospects for long term stability.
Bottom line, am looking for good books and articles as sources, or credible websites. This isn't a dissertation, but the sources need some rigor.
common sense doesn't apply
Wilf,
Excellent points and they to many conflicts around the globe. I wish some of our DOD and DOS policy members would comment on how any nation could feasibly defeat a separatist movement like the LTTE following our policies? Policies as you stated that we wouldn't follow ourselves. From where I sit we seem to generate extremely naive policies that are beginning to result in America influence being less welcome in many parts of the world. One only need to review the Leahy Amendment on human rights violations to get an understanding of how far we have gone down this road to unintended isolation from the real world.
The losers now (and their supporters, both State and non-State in the global community) get to take the winners to trial, which means that the conflict will continue via lawfare that Jmm99 wrote about a few times. In a way the EU, UN, U.S. and others have joined hands with the LTTE, while China and others have joined hands with the Sri Lankan government. Is this a World War (using lawfare)?
I think the West in general is getting to the point that our extremely simplistic views of right and wrong are going to result in us in having less influence on the world stage as we continue to isolate ourselves in a concoon of quixotic ideals that simply don't apply in the real world. Perhaps the saddest part of this is the intent to support human rights is good, but in practice the way we apply the policies results in indecisive action, which in turns results in conflicts dragging on for years. This results not only in much more suffering, but in lost generations that know nothing but war.
If it is essential to our national interests to enter a conflict (directly or indirectly), then whenever possible I would recommend pushing for a strategy that resulted in a decisive victory instead of prolonging the status quo by applying naive policies. I realize the world isn't black and white, but in many cases we "seem" to add imaginary complexity.
The ICRC is a marginally well intentioned organization
of little real worth so I don't pay them much heed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tequila
even any solid examples of how the U.S. or the West is losing "global influence" (I thought we didn't really care how the rest of the world thought of us, Ken, since they are fated to hate us/be jealous of us no matter what?) due to our insistence on care for civilians in wartime?
I do not know if we're losing global influence, nor do I or most Americans particularly care. I also believe that said 'influence' is predicated to a great extent on the strength of the USD. What I do know is that our popularity fluctuates wildly but has never been great so far as the rest of the world is concerned.
Said popularity does go up when we save someone from from a bad day (which happens a lot) and it goes down when we throw our weight around or screw something up (which happens even more often). In my observation, our popularity was not great in 1947 (first year I paid attention) and has been on a generally downhill slope with only occasional upticks since. mid to immediate post Viet Nam was the lowest point I've seen. Iraq was just a slight downturn compared to VN.
The fact that no one like to be bailed out of difficulty by someone else also intrudes; immediate gratitude turns to resentment... :wry:
All that to reiterate that I and many I know do not really care (a few I know do care -- but not a great deal...) what the rest of the world thinks of us; that our 'global influence' is and off and on thing dependent on many factors; and that the fact that we espouse one rule for ourselves and varied more stringent rules for others merely makes us hypocritical -- the effect of that on our popularity or influence is indeterminable and infinitely variable. That effect has nothing to do with what I said or why I said it.
Our 'insistence' on care for civilians in wartime is a totally practical thing. Killing or harming too many has adverse military effect; we're simply trying to avoid that. That 'concern' is enhanced nowadays for propaganda reasons and to be politically correct and placate the American left. I suspect much of it would go out the window if we had a real war on our hands. You read this? (LINK). Shows what happens when the gloves are removed, whole different attitude. And the American left was in charge then... :eek: :D
Aside from not leaving the 's' off "likes," I should've said
'will sooner or later' turn to resentment.
Very wise oriental gentleman you talked to...:wry: