The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label

Latest entry on the SWJ Blog by Jim Guirard of the TrueSpeak Institute - The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label.

Quote:

---

Peter Beinert's "The War of the Words" essay in the Washington Post (Op-ed, April 1) is seriously lacking on several counts. He demonstrates the same blind spots and faulty analysis as the Pelosi-Murtha House Democrats do when they issue a cut-and-run document which, along with other nonsense, condemns use of the "Global War on Terrorism" label...

---

If you like this op-ed please go here - Real Clear Politics - and give it a vote - thanks...

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...istake/244667/

I am frequently hard on our intel community. Justifiably so. Sure, they are smart, hard working, and completely dedicated to the task of finding and describing threats. No issues there. They just don't understand the nature of the conflict we are in and refuse to evolve or listen to those who might be able to help them in that regard.

But when I read this today I had to agree completely. Particularly in regards to 9/11 being much more a crime than an act of war (one must take into account the nature of the actor, as well as the nature of the act when making such an assessment); and also in regards to the illogic of going into Iraq. I have never understood that one from the moment the first snowflake of "start thinking about Iraq" drifted down to my work station in the Army AOC from Secretary Rumsfeld's stand up desk.

Click the embedded link in the Atlantic article to get to the tape and transcripts of the full text of this exchange.

I'm not going to get into a legal argument with you about the legal and policy views of Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller. As to her, I had more than my fill following the Binyam Mohamed proceedings in the US and UK courts. They BTW reached strikingly different results. For those interested, do an Advanced Google Search on "Eliza Manningham-Buller" "binyam mohamed" - with about 15,500 results. BLUF: I disagree with her basic premises; and thus, her conclusions.

As to legal arguments, I've had my fill of making them. They simply tend to go around in circles - unless you are making them for an actual decision maker, who can cut them short and decide which one wins. So, IMO, legal arguments here are generally a waste of valuable time that could be spent (by me, at least) on much better things.

That being said, I've never seen the value (from policy and political standpoints) of relying solely on the criminal law, or solely on military force, to deal with such as AQ and their minions. In short, I see nothing wrong with "declaring war" (an AUMF) on a group of violent non-state actors. That, BTW, is really a political decision - not a legal decision. "Declaring war" on a tactic (terrorism) is an obvious misuse of language.

Why tie one hand behind your back (whether that one hand be the criminal law or military force) in confronting these knuckleheads ?

Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

But when I read this today I had to agree completely. Particularly in regards to 9/11 being much more a crime than an act of war (one must take into account the nature of the actor, as well as the nature of the act when making such an assessment);

---

Possibly true on the crime bit. It is certainly arguable. It is also irrelevant. The international criminal justice system was and is no more prepared to deal with non state actors flying airplanes into buildings than was or is the US DoD. Anything done would have been ad-hocery to the tenth power and would have been of marginal value with all sorts of cock-ups. As, indeed, was the case...:wry:

I'd also note that if it was accorded status as a crime, implied is capture and trial of the perps -- that would have been a real circus. :rolleyes:

The only really effective response would be to track down and kill all those involved and their families unto fifth Cousins or thereabouts and the sooner the better. Rightly or wrongly, we do not operate that way; thus any action would have been of only marginal effectiveness and all things considered, the military was in a better position to take some sort of action than was law enforcement -- that's why they got the job. The facts that several pre-emptive efforts had been mounted but cancelled at the last minute by vacillating politicians and that both law enforcement agencies and the armed forces had adequate warning of the likelihood of such attacks but were ill prepared is an indictment of those Politicians and our ponderous political (and military...) system -- it is also reality.

Make no mistake, in the US, something had to be done simply because that's the way -- wrongly but universally -- we operate; the Pols must be seen as doing something -- even if it is wrong as is usually the case...

Quote:

---

and also in regards to the illogic of going into Iraq. I have never understood that one from the moment the first snowflake of "start thinking about Iraq" drifted down to my work station in the Army AOC from Secretary Rumsfeld's stand up desk.

---

I'm surprised that a Stratagerist doesn't understand that. Not agreeing with it is one thing, not understanding it is another. It wasn't illogical, it resulted from flawed thinking in some aspects but there was a sound logical basis.

The need to be seen doing something to effectively respond to probes from the ME over almost 30 prior years; doing that without greatly disturbing world oil trade; the geographic centrality of Iraq; its size and ease of access by air, sea and land; the pariah status of its leader; base locations the US has long wanted in the area (for what reason is a different question...); halting the conversion of international oil trade from dollars to Euros, disrupting the French, German and Russian economic hegemony in the area and returning it to a UK /US fief; disrupting the EU Constitutional process -- literally dozens of good reasons. Shame about the terribly flawed execution. That, however was the fault of the US Army, not Bush or Rumsfeld. ;)

Flawed execution does not denote an illogical effort. The fact that it was rushed was due to US domestic politics. Bush believed something needed to be done, he accepted the dippy neocon plan and had it modified to suit his purposes -- do something significant to get the attention of folks in the ME (in contrast to his four predecessors who swatted flies and as opposed to Afghanistan which is not part of the ME; Afghanistan was do not attck the US on its soil, Iraq was do not attack US interests anywhere...), do it in order to lock in his successor, do that in the first term just in case he did not get reelected, do it to spend lots of money to also hog-tie said successor...

One can disagree with any or all that but none of it is illogical. Though any or all can be 'wrong' in the view of some.

Nah, it was logical, just not done very well -- yet more examples of how the US domestic political scene totally drives our foreign policy and how the US Army isn't quite as good as it likes to say it is (I think it knows better but it cannot say that). :wry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

One can disagree with any or all that but none of it is illogical. Though any or all can be 'wrong' in the view of some.

---

To identify logic to strategic actions of many players in recent times (America being but one) I imagine that you are making assumptions and deductions. For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs, whereas my small populous get the line that commitment to Afghanistan is necessary for democracy/int'l security/stability to prevail. It seems that we all assume realism occurs behind the scenes, yet idealism is all that is preached to the masses (of course it's a little more blurred than that, but for the sake of argument I'd suggest that this generalisation is more or less correct).

I don't think that the US is alone, either - Stratfor has done some recent articles on the German actions in the Eurozone crises, and alleges that Berlin is trying to increase her control over the Euro block but cannot/ will not speak in those terms.

Heading back to the opening posts, the term 'war on terror' can only be described as an opiate for the masses, rendering the complexities of geopolitics as part of the mythic good-v-evil struggle that is as easily retweeted as the central plot of any of the Star Wars movies.

Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency.

I tend to prefer "Phony War on Terrorism" or "Stupid War on terrorism".

Because well, you wouldn't attack Saddam and side with his Kurdish foes if you were waging war on terrorism. The Kurds were the only ones harboring terrorists, after all.

Same for Florida - and I don't mean a flying school. It's well-known that there are extremist exile Cubans who fit the "terrorist" label if you look at them with open eyes.

Then there are the domestic right wing terrorists who are being vastly underrated as a threat in comparison to foreign terrorists. (So maybe "terrorism" isn't the dominant characteristic?)

Maybe I should mention the fact that the U.S. is now fighting together with Libyan rebels, some of whom were apparently once handed over to Libya as terrorists?

Or maybe it should be called "war with terror", for the permanent media bombardment with terror topics qualifies as terror itself, even though it free rides on others' violence?


I still kept my fingers off the hottest topics...

While I believe the acts much more a "crime" than an act of war, I believe that states should exercise extra-judicial authorities in responding to such crimes. Any trial would be either a travesty or a farce. We know AQ did it, so go out and punish AQ. That does not mean "declare a war" on them, or issue warrants for their arrest, trial and possible punishment if proven guilty. There is a middle ground, more like how Israel relentlessly, and without fanfare, hunted down and terminated certain Nazi war criminals.

We need to be pragmatic. Anytime a state adopts a program of punishment that is as hard on the taxpaying citizens as it is on the criminals it seeks to punish; and equally, is of a design that really does little to resolve a problem and in many ways makes it worse (think "war on drugs", "war on terror", and probably a few of the other pseudo-wars as well) it is bad policy.

AQ is the symptom. Put a death warrant on the symptom. That done, now stop and think about what the roots of the problem are that gave rise to those symptoms, that allow an organization such as AQ to have influence, that fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East, that have so damaged US reputation in the same region in increasing degree since a peak of positiveness at the end of WWII and design new policies for more appropriately engaging that important region of the world. Waging a war instead only serves to distract from the critical tasks, and to overly focus on military actions over civil actions.

Being a nation that operates under the rule of law does not mean that we are a slave to the laws that are currently on the books. We could have written new laws to support what we needed to do that would have met much broader approval than our decision to employ existing laws in the context of war. The current laws we operate under are wholly inappropriate and illogical to the problem we apply them against. They guide us into programs of actions that make the problem worse as often as they help.

Its like we needed to play a game of soccer, but the only rule books avilable were for Chess and American Football, and we resigned ourselves to having to pick one to follow. We should have just written rules for soccer that fit the game and go play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris jM

For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs

---

Nobody who was paying attention took that rationale seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

AQ is the symptom. Put a death warrant on the symptom. That done, now stop and think about what the roots of the problem are that gave rise to those symptoms, that allow an organization such as AQ to have influence, that fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East, that have so damaged US reputation in the same region in increasing degree since a peak of positiveness at the end of WWII and design new policies for more appropriately engaging that important region of the world.

---

It has yet to be demonstrated that the root causes of AQ's war on the US are the same as those that "fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East". I have yet to see it convincingly argued that AQ's war on the US was a reaction to American policy. The assumption that this is the case seems to me a very shaky basis for policy.

Addressing root causes is never a bad thing, but you can't address them unless you have a clear idea of what they are and a concrete, realistic plan to alter them. Do we have either?

I would be very hesitant to draw a parallel between AQs war and the troubles in Ireland. The similarities seem rather superficial and the differences very profound.

I agree, vehemently, that the term "war on terror" is absurd and should be retired.

I also agree that the string of attacks that culminated an 9/11 were not attacks on "freedom" or "democracy".

It's possible that for the people who carried out the attacks, "an external enemy was... a unifying way of addressing some of their own frustrations". I don't think that was an issue at all for the people who provided the planning and support that allowed the attacks to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

I agree, vehemently, that the term "war on terror" is absurd and should be retired.

---

Let's not make "War on terror" politically incorrect phrase . Terror is a real threat and it can't be ignored but at the same time we need to adrress issues of disgruntled few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

We know AQ did it, so go out and punish AQ.

---

The very idea of justice is to avoid exactly that.

The U.S. believed to know a lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident


Opinion is not a satisfactory criterion for negating persons' right to live. You need more. Like a fair trial, for example.


Besides; where's the evidence that links today's "AQ" franchise-takers to the 'original' crime? I thought masterminds, helpers, financier etc are all dead or captives. The only links seem to be ideology and the (loose) organisation. Would you accept being trialled for murder when grabbed by a foreign power because someone in the U.S. Armed Forces committed murder in Iraq?


The Western civilization has developed a sense of justice and sets of procedures to seek justice that are at odds with your statement.
Feel free to follow your belief, but don't expect to get away unscathed, unsanctioned if it's adopted as national policy. Getting away with something in the UNSC does not equal getting away with it without sanctions. The whole AQ mess is pretty much sanctioning for much lesser actions long ago.

Quote:

---

from Chris jM
Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency.

---

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boobaloo

Let's not make "War on terror" politically incorrect phrase . Terror is a real threat and it can't be ignored but at the same time we need to adrress issues of disgruntled few.

---

To declare a war on a tactic, or even a small club of men who wish to do one harm through the application of that tactic, does far more harm than good. It causes one to lose perspective; perspective on the true danger of that "threat." Not everything that threatens us is a threat to us, at least not an existential threat. However, we can in many ways become an existential threat to our own well being through the pursuit of excessive and poorly conceived responses to such problems.

No, "war on terror" is a horrible phrase and concept. It misapplies the term "war" in ways that have led us to excessive approaches and abuses of the sovereignty of others that are in fact "legal" under the term. Legal does not ensure that something is also Just or Right. It also has served to elevate a tactic and those who employ such tactics to a level of importance far in excess to the actual risk they pose to our nation and our populace.

"War on AQ" is not much better.

Chris jM:

Quote:

---

"To identify logic to strategic actions of many players in recent times (America being but one) I imagine that you are making assumptions and deductions. For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs, whereas my small populous get the line that commitment to Afghanistan is necessary for democracy/int'l security/stability to prevail.'

---

In order, Yes, but more deduction than assumption and that overlaid with some knowledge. For the WMD bit, see Dayuhan's response. Can't speak for other nations but in the US, it appears only some of our pathetic news media took that seriously -- though a good many of the left leaning spouted it as a slam to the Bush administration. We get the same bit of Afghanistan -- don't know about En Zed but here most snicker.:wry:

Quote:

---

"Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency. "

---

I do not wonder; that's a hard truth engendered by soft politicians who try to be all things to all people and who will avoid reality if at all possible in order to present a vision of good governance. When you sell myths, you start believing them... :rolleyes:

Fuchs:

Quote:

---

"I still kept my fingers off the hottest topics... "

---

Yes you did -- and we're quite proud of you for doing so. ;)

Bob's World:

Quote:

---

"Being a nation that operates under the rule of law does not mean that we are a slave to the laws that are currently on the books. We could have written new laws to support what we needed to do that would have met much broader approval than our decision to employ existing laws in the context of war. The current laws we operate under are wholly inappropriate and illogical to the problem we apply them against. They guide us into programs of actions that make the problem worse as often as they help."

---

I couldn't agree more. Don't know what you've done about it but I consistently vote and work against incumbents in an effort to send a message to politicians that their venality needs to be reined in a bit. It should also be noted that not only those laws but our habits and proclivities lead us to to inappropriate responses. So to do our capabilities...

All that can be fixed and you'll not see change of any magnitude until all three issues are addressed.

Quote:

---

"Its like we needed to play a game of soccer, but the only rule books avilable were for Chess and American Football, and we resigned ourselves to having to pick one to follow. We should have just written rules for soccer that fit the game and go play."

---

Yep, we should have -- but as I have to keep reminding you, the American political milieu is not capable of or inclined to do that for several reasons that cannot be simply wished away.

You can write about what should happen into eternity but until you can address / accept / adapt to that reality, you'll see no differences. You also should pay heed to Dayuhan's response...

JMM:

Quote:

---

"Good point ...."

---

Indeed.

And that is what this thread is really about... :cool:

In her comments (7 Sep 2011) imposing a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence, Judge Colleen McMahon said:

Quote:

---

"The essence of what occurred here was that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens, created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of one man in particular and four men generally and then made these fantasies come true," she said. "The government made them terrorists. ... I am not proud of my government for what it did in this case."

---

If this judge truly believed the "essence of what occured here" (that ... "The government made them terrorists"), then the courage of her convictions ought to have compelled her to find that the defendants were entapped as a matter of law and to dismiss the charges.

Confusion, inconsistency or hypocrisy as to "terrorism" ?

Regards

Mike

Whatever it is, there certainly is a lot of it going around. :wry:

or Is It ? That's the bottom line to a debate (sponsered by Intelligence Squared and Slate) involving people of higher pay grades than I - 7 Sep 2011, It's Time to End the War on Terror, For the Motion: Peter Bergen, Juliette Kayyem; Against the Motion: Richard Falkenrath, Michael Hayden; Moderator: John Donvan (50-page transcript).

At Lawfare, analysis of the debate is by John Mattiace, "an attorney practicing in New Jersey, who earned his J.D. from Seton Hall Law School in 2010. While in law school, he studied Islamic Law at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and served as an intern to the Staff Judge Advocate of the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg in North Carolina":

Quote:

---

The debate was accompanied by direct audience voting, with the side having generated the biggest percentage change in opinion deemed to have “won” the debate. By this metric, the debate was won by Hayden and Falkenrath, with their side having changing the minds of 15 percent of the audience, and the other side having only changed the minds of 3 percent. On the other hand, a plurality at the end of the debate still favored ending the war on terror; the overall vote at the end was 46 percent for ending it, with 43 percent against ending the war and 11 percent undecided.

---

I find it possible to harmonize both positions for the simple reason that the two sides were talking past each other (ships in the night):

The Hayden-Falkenrath side makes a telling ROE point (not really disputed by Bergen-Kayyem):

Quote:

---

Hayden and Falkenrath framed the debate by defining the notion of “war” largely as the legal state which was created by the passage of the AUMF shortly after September 11. They reasoned that this legal state, undergirded by the AUMF, gives the government the authority to carry out acts of war, such as the killing of bin Laden, legally. As Hayden put it:

Quote:

---

The point we want to make is the legal construct–the legal belief that we are a nation at war; that we are a nation in conflict; and we have a right, because we are in that status, to use the legal tools and the legal authorities that a nation at war is allowed to use. What it is we’re supporting is to keep all available tools on the table–to keep a menu of options from law enforcement, diplomacy, or to arm[ed] conflict in order to keep you safe.

---

....
Thus, Hayden and Falkenrath’s position is that without this legal state of war, the government can no longer legally carry out such acts like the killing of bin Laden or the various “number twos” of al Qaeda. Hayden specifically used the killing of bin Laden to strengthen his position. He put the killing in stark terms, describing it in the following way:

Quote:

---

Let me give you a slightly different description of [bin Laden’s killing]. A heavily armed agent of the United States government was in a room with an unarmed man who was under indictment in the United States judicial system and was offering no significant resistance to the heavily armed agent of the United States government, and that heavily armed agent of the United States government killed him.

---

Hayden’s rhetorical purpose is clear with the inclusion of the phrases “under indictment in the United Stated judicial system” and “offering no significant resistance.” Any attorney hearing or reading this description in a vacuum would be instantly troubled by these facts and even a first year law student could “issue spot” the various Fifth and Fourth Amendment violations. Even someone with no legal training at all would be revolted. But that same action taken by the same “heavily armed agent of the United States” does not constitute a violation of the Constitution, nor any criminal statute, precisely because the country is in the legal state of war. ......

---

These are points I've made over and over again for the last three years.

On the other side of debate, Bergen-Kayyem went little to law and more to a "state of mind":

Quote:

---

Bergen and Kayyem ended up agreeing with Hayden and Falkenrath that the legal tools that allow the Executive to kill people like bin Laden should not be taken away. Kayyem specifically stated that:

Quote:

---

There is authority for the President to use force, including killing Bin Laden, under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. I support that.

---

Nevertheless, they argued that the term “war” means more than a simple legal state in the context of the phrase “war on terror.” Bergen described their position as follows:

Quote:

---

[W]e’re just calling for an end of this all-encompassing, global conflict that has cost us so much money. We’re not calling for [the end of] a global police action against terrorists, certainly. We reserve the right for a certain kind of war-like activities, but it’s time to stop this sort of grandiose approach, where we’re at war with any person who’s ever said the word “Jihad” around the world, which is going to cost us a lot of money.

---

Kayyem argued that the war on terror represented many negative things listing the following:

Quote:

---

the enhanced interrogation, the dark side, the with us or against us, the indiscriminate interviewing [of] particular Arab and Muslim communities, the registration of Arab immigrants, military tribunals that adhere to standards unrecognized in military law, the color code alerts, the breathless press conferences, the rejection of the law of wars, the treating of the Geneva Conventions as quaint, secret wiretapping and violation of established law, the disdain for the judiciary–those were also part of that war.

---

Bergen also added that:

Quote:

---

The War on Terror was not the war on Al-Qaeda and its allies. It was an open-ended conflict against a tactic that produced a lot of enormous problems for this country, including the Iraq War and all that, the legacy we have from that. . . . We’re not just debating about what happened today. It’s about a mindset which causes countries some serious economic problems–which we are still trying to recover from.

---

Thus, Bergen and Kayyem’s position is that the “war on terror” does not only represent a legal structure but also carries with it a sort of grandiose global notion of war and includes things like warrantless wiretapping, black sites, rendition, harsh interrogation, the spending of over a trillion dollars and acts like the Iraq war. Overall, they contended that because the country has moved past these things and by extension changed its mindset, it should cease framing its counterterrorism as a war.

---

While many of the things said by Bergen-Kayyem are true or have elements of truth, various things that are "bad" do not necessarily follow from an AUMF vs a group or groups of Violent Non-State Actors. Just because you have a broad hunting license, doesn't mean you have to kill everything in the woods.

As to mindset, a starting point (and the ultimate defense against terrorism as a tactic) would be the civilian population's refusal to be terrorized. Soldiers accept risks in the field; civilians should also accept risks in this kind of conflict (the risks not being anywhere close to existential with respect to the civilian population as a group).

The problem, of course, with barring the door to any AUMF basis is simply that tools will be lost - e.g., UBL being a member of a declared hostile force.

Those who want to move us from "war" to "peace" - and cherry pick statements from new-found "allies" that seem to agree with that, had best look more carefully at all the consequences of their allies' positions.

Regards

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Opinion is not a satisfactory criterion for negating persons' right to live. You need more. Like a fair trial, for example.

---

Germany seemed to have a difficult time with respecting a persons' right to live and fair trails up until 1945 (to exclude the occupied eastern portion of Germany that got to experience a little Soviet Utopia for nearly half a century). In its case it took a severe case of Götterdämmerung to finally knock most of the martial spirit out of it, and now the Germans seem to get along so well with others. :wry:

AQ and the Taliban seem to need a bit of their own Götterdämmerung to calm them down and make them play well with others.

While the US certainly tries to impose its will on others, we at least try not to do so in a genocidal fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār

Germany seemed to have a difficult time with respecting a persons' right to live and fair trails up until 1945 (to exclude the occupied eastern portion of Germany that got to experience a little Soviet Utopia for nearly half a century). In its case it took a severe case of Götterdämmerung to finally knock most of the martial spirit out of it, and now the Germans seem to get along so well with others. :wry:

AQ and the Taliban seem to need a bit of their own Götterdämmerung to calm them down and make them play well with others.

While the US certainly tries to impose its will on others, we at least try not to do so in a genocidal fashion.

---

Tell the Seminoles.
Oh, wait. Hmm, blame the Canadians.


Your version of German history is the comic book version. I doubt that the average coal or metal worker had much "martial spirit", ever.
In fact, I doubt that "martial spirit" had a significant role at all.
I do so in part because Germany was essentially for 43 years in a row in continental peace after 1871 (supposedly its most militaristic period!) and in part because we rebuilt a pretty much respected military within about ten years ('54-'64) after supposedly losing most of that spirit.


Besides - others having done a mistake is no excuse to repeat it or something similar: It's a lesson that should be learned and understood!

the Cherokee, Sioux, Lakota, Cheyenne, etc… and remind me the part of US History where the US Army acted like so many Einsatzgruppen during our movement west? And no, I don’t blame the Canadians; we took the land by conquest. No apologies, it was that kinda century, the old 19th.

Spare me please Fuchs, but then again 5,820,960 is just a statistic, according to Remarque. And as to your innocent “average coal or metal worker:” I’ll grant you they were probably non-martial, and also very non-aware as they blithely ignored the goings on at Bergen-Belsen, Bernburg, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Kaufering, Mittelbau-Dora, Neuengamme, Ohrdruf, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen. All we’ve got is Guantanamo, should I feel cheated? :eek:

While we were marching ever westward quelling those pesky Redmen and wiping out their way of life, the Germans were busy bringing Schleswig and Holstein into the Teutonic fold and clearing up those minor border disagreements with Austria and France, with that first victory march down Les Champs-Elysées. :D

While the US adventure in the Philippines was not without its bloodshed and atrocity, let’s not forget Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft für Südwest-Afrika, the Schutzgebiet Deutsch-Ostafrika, Kamerun, and Togoland. I’m sure both the Maji Maji and Herero have fond memories of the kind German occupation and view those years as ones of Utopian peace and prosperity.

Yes, the Germans had a nice peaceful stretch there from just after the kicking of France’s ass, and very gently occupying the Alsace-Lorraine, to the willful violation of Belgian neutrality. However, in the German Army’s defense, I do not buy most of the stories of German troops committing atrocities in Belgium and Luxembourg, most smack of propaganda.

Certainly the Germans had some internal difficulties with Weimar trying to stave off the Spartakusbund, Bolsheviks, and hyperinflation, but at least most of the deaths were German, well except for those Friekorps “peacekeeping” activities in the Baltic and Silesia. Ernst von Salomon does a nice job recalling the soft ministrations of the Eiserne Brigade on the Slavic people.

Then came 1933 and the slippery slide into the horrors perpetrated by a nation of morons who seemed eagerly to dance to the tune of an Austrian Bohemian piper. You should be proud!

Yes, Fuchs, I have several shelves filled with the comic book versions of German History. But it seems you not only have the comic book version of American history, but the comic book one of German history as well. Seems you think the German people have very little blood on their hands outside the “aberration” of 1939-45.

While you certainly are free to bash the US as much as you want, when you want to take on the air of moral superiority it helps if you actually have some moral high ground to stand upon when you look down your nose at us.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” ~Joe

Maybe you should try to read more sensibly. You might spot relevant words such as "continental" in critical places, or even read till the last line and learn about the key meaning of a forum post.


Btw, by the time of the Holocaust, the average German worker was either in military service or working 60+ hours/week. How much time is left for caring about politics and incredible rumours after working 60 hrs/week (breaks not counted) and having a wife, several children plus getting awake at night quite often because of air raid alarms?

First, I missed that key word. Well the US had essentially 102 years in a row of “continental” peace after 1899, until that day in September 10 years ago reset the clock. So there. :D

Second, your last line subtly implies that the US is repeating the Holocaust, or something similar. I don’t think we need to learn many lessons from the German experience, since most humans, and the majority of Americans, respect the sanctity of human life. What we do understand though, is that one doesn’t erect an entire infrastructure dedicated to the elimination of human life. Well, that is erecting it between working 60 hour weeks, having a wife, several children, plus getting awoken at night quite often because of air raids? Or did all those camps just show up one day? That's right it was all the SS's fault.

I like the “incredible rumours” part. Are you a Holocaust denier, Fuchs? Sorry, but your excuses are pretty thin to cover for “average” Germans exhibiting a huge amount of moral cowardice.

The difference between you and me is that I attempted to look at it from the perspective of the supposedly martial-spirited people. You didn't look at it from that perspective and thus you don't get the "incredible" thing.

the most martial-spirited Americans sit at nice mahogany desks in a big marble building on a hill near the Potomac and have no problem throwing around their martial-spirit, as long as they or theirs do not have to do the fighting and dying. :wry:

But it occurs to me that there is a lesson to be learned from Germany. Hitler was too overconfident in 1939 when he decided to invade Poland. The Großer Generalstab did not feel the Wehrmacht was sufficiently prepared equipment wise for a potential protracted war. The lessons of the Polenfeldzug certainly helped make Fall Gelb the stunning victory it was, but Hitler then stretched the military even further by invading Crete (Merkur certainly was a Pyrrhic victory) and then getting involved in North Africa (Italy certainly was the “weak sister” of the alliance). Invading Russia, while initially successful, was the final straw and Germany was thus engaged on too many fronts without the resources (guns, tanks, and planes you can build but people are much harder replace). The early victories led to even greater commitments which lead eventually to over commitment. The Japanese had a term for it: senshoubyou (victory disease).

In similar fashion, I think the US is dangerously spread thin across a wide spectrum of commitments, both military and economic, and we are beginning to have a difficult time resourcing those activities. We must be careful that our own hubris does not give us a terminal case of senshoubyou.

Here is "Terrorism Defined" by six Appellate Military Judges, United States v Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul (USCMCR, 9 Sep 2011), pp.52-53:

Quote:

---

b. Terrorism - defined

The offense of “terrorism” warrants particularized discussion as it is invoked in each charged offense. The 2006 M.C.A. § 950v(b)(24) prohibits AUECs from committing terrorism stating:

Quote:

---

TERRORISM.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more protected persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

---

This definition of “terrorism,” is incorporated into “providing material support for terrorism,” see n. 68 (quoting 2006 M.C.A. 950v(b)(25)(A)), and may be appropriately characterized as the underlying offense. In addition, the specifications of the conspiracy and solicitation charges cite “terrorism” as an object offense. Accordingly, we will discuss “terrorism” as that offense is defined in the 2006 M.C.A. and international law.

The 2006 M.C.A. definition is more comprehensive than Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, API, and APII. All prohibit the “intentional targeting and killing of protected persons” and “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.” See supra n. 39. In addition, the 2006 M.C.A. requires the Government prove that “[t]he accused did so in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” 2007 M.M.C. Part IV, ¶ 6(24)b(2). The 2006 M.C.A.’s inclusion of an additional element actually narrows the conduct subject to individual criminal liability, and places an additional burden of proof on the Government.

The 2006 M.C.A. definition is also consistent with the most comprehensive definition of “terrorism” by international treaty extant on September 11, 2001. Specifically, the 1999 Financing Terrorism Convention included in its prohibition of conduct meeting the definition of terrorism:

Quote:

---

Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: (a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex;[71] or (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

---

Article 2.1, International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Dec. 9, 1999) (1999 Financing Terrorism Convention), 2178 U.N.T.S. 197, 39 I.L.M. 270, G.A. Res. 54/109 (emphasis added).

The similarity in these definitions does not suggest that a universally accepted definition of terrorism existed at the time of appellant’s charged conduct, or that such a definition currently exists in international law. A more accurate description of the treaty law addressing international terrorism would be ad hoc. Long-standing efforts to define “terrorism” have been the subject of persistent political dispute, primarily associated with national liberation movements, concerns inapplicable to al Qaeda’s attacks on the United States. See Alex Schmid, Terrorism on Trial: Terrorism—The Definitional Problem, 36 Case W. Res. J. Intl. L. 375 (2004).

At least 12 antiterrorism treaties or conventions predate appellant’s offenses.[72] .... [JMM: the opinion then goes on to discuss these treaties in depth]

71. The annex lists the nine treaties infra at n. 72, except Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (Mar. 1, 1991), 30 I.L.M. 726; Tokyo Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, Sept. 14, 1963, 20 U.S.T. 2941, 704 U.N.T.S. 219.

72. Those 12 antiterrorism treaties include: (1) International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Dec. 9, 1999) (1999 Financing Terrorism Convention), 2178 U.N.T.S. 197, 39 I.L.M. 270, G.A. Res. 54/109; (2) International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (Dec. 15, 1997) (1997 Bombing Convention), 37 I.L.M. 249; (3) Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (Mar. 1, 1991), 30 I.L.M. 726; (4) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (Mar. 10, 1988), 27 I.L.M. 684, 1678 U.N.T.S. 304; (5) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Mar. 10, 1988), 27 I.L.M. 668, 1678 U.N.T.S. 221; (6) Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (Feb. 24, 1988), 27 I.L.M. 627, 1589 U.N.T.S. 474; (7) Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Oct. 26, 1979), 18 I.L.M. 1419, 1456 U.N.T.S. 1987; (8) International Convention Against the taking of Hostages (Dec. 17, 1979), G.A. Res. 34/146, U.N. Doc. A/34/46, 1316 U.N.T.S. 205; (9) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents (Dec. 14, 1973), 28 U.S.T. 1975, 1035 U.N.T.S. 167; (10) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Sept. 23, 1971), 24 U.S.T. 565, 974 U.N.T.S. 177; (11) Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Dec. 16, 1970), 22 U.S.T. 1641, 860 U.N.T.S. 105; (12) Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (Sept. 14, 1963), 20 U.S.T. 2941, 704 U.N.T.S. 219. See Hamdan, 2011 WL 2923945 at *20 n. 59 (listing dates entered into force for the UN, ratified or accessed by the U.S., entered into force for the U.S., and number of signatories and parties). See also Karin G. Tackaberry, Time to Stand Up and Be Counted: The Need for the United Nations to Control International Terrorism, The Army Lawyer (July 2007) 1, 7-14 (discussing the relevance and limitations of additional terrorism-related treaties, conventions and agreements).

---

Please note that this opinion is concerned with whether acts during an armed conflict come under the war crimes prohibitions where "terrorism" is an element to the war crimes. The opinion is not authority one way or the other as to whether the armed conflict should or should not be called the "War on Terror".

Regards

Mike

What I find interesting in the definition of terrorism is that the term is used almost exclusively to describe non-state actors using violence against states. When a state uses violence in a manner calculated to influence or affect the civilian population by intimidation or coercion, is that not terrorism as well... whether the population in question is its own or that of another nation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

What I find interesting in the definition of terrorism is that the term is used almost exclusively to describe non-state actors using violence against states. When a state uses violence in a manner calculated to influence or affect the civilian population by intimidation or coercion, is that not terrorism as well... whether the population in question is its own or that of another nation?

---

Well... that's not entirely accurate, in that we're not entirely that honest in our definitions. Lockerbie, for instance, is considered terrorism. Not to be trite, but it's mainly considered terrorism when they do it. Whoever "they" happens to be at the time.

The absence of Violent State Actors from the statutory equation is scarcely surprising.

Could the definition of "terrorism" applied to Violent Non-State Actors be logically extended to Violent State Actors ? Of course, but it won't be.

Doesn't bother me in the least.

Regards

Mike

I went and downloaded the decision you cited to have it as a reference. People toss these terms around without thinking about it to no end. The results are often suboptimal when they do, because they make decisions made based on hysterical conflations.

A Washington, DC-area attorney, writer, lecturer and anti-terrrism strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief-of-Staff to former US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long of Louisiana. His TrueSpeak Institute and TrueSpeak.org website are devoted to truth-in-history and truth-in-language in public discourse.:p;)

Another perspective. Not definitive, just my initial effort at reframing a clearer perspective on what governments are so quick to simply label as "terrorism."

Al-Qaeda: An illegal political action group with no specific state affiliation conducting a networked approach to unconventional and guerrilla warfare, often employing terrorist tactics, in order to shape the political domain of the greater Middle East to their will. AQ uses an extreme Islamist ideology to gain influence with their target populaces of disenfranchised Sunni Muslims to promote revolution to address poor governance in their respective states, coupled with a global resistance campaign against what is perceived as excessive Western influence over the governance of the region.

AQ is empowered by the confluence of two major events occurring over the past 25 years:
1. The demise of the threat of Soviet dominion over the region, and the general continuation of Western containment policies and postures;
2. The unprecedented breakthroughs in information technologies

The demise of the Soviets removed much of the rationale for the degree of presence and influence exerted by the US and West over the political and security landscape of the greater Middle East. While most governments were satisfied with sustaining the status quo, there has been a steadily growing discontent among the populaces of the region with their domestic governance, as well as the perceive role played by Western powers in sustaining what has been viewed increasingly as an unacceptable status quo. This was the catalyst.

The role of advances in information technology has been both the expander and the accelerant. As populaces became more aware of the larger surroundings it fed frustrations across the political, social and religious spectrums. Those in control acted to exert greater control, and those disempowered acted to gain greater power. Individuals, nationalist and regional organizations were all able to leverage these technologies by pass state controls on everything from sharing information to organizing to conduct revolutionary activities.

Governmental response:
To date governmental response has primarily been reactive and designed to enforce the rule of law and preserve the status quo. Acts of terrorism have been met with programs of counterterrorism. Acts of insurgency have been met with programs of counterinsurgency. AQ has suffered tactical defeats but is widely assessed as being stronger now than it was on 9/11. While AQ’s UW efforts have failed to gain traction with the broader populaces of the region, those populaces have acted out of their own accord to attain the change they seek nationally through the on-going revolutionary events of Arab Spring. There are essentially two kinds of states in the region; those that are experiencing revolution now, and those that will experience revolution soon. The unwillingness of governments to make reasonable concessions coupled with the over-reliance upon some mix of social bribery and internal security to sustain an artificial façade of stability will become increasingly untenable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

AQ uses an extreme Islamist ideology to gain influence with their target populaces of disenfranchised Sunni Muslims to promote revolution to address poor governance in their respective states

---

Again I think you're duistorting AQ to fit it into your own governance-centric model, rather than adjusting the model to fit what's actually worked for AQ. AQ has generally failed pretty miserably in their efforts to "promote revolution to address poor governance"... not because people are happy with the governance they get, but because very few seem to believe that AQ has anything better to offer. Where AQ and its precursors have succeeded is in firing up and exploiting anger at foreign military intervention in Muslim lands. AQ has tried to exploit a number of different narratives, but the only one that's ever drawn support beyond a very small circle is "expel the infidel from the land of the faithful".

I also think the impact of information technology on AQ's organizing is very much overrated, and I've yet to see any credibly supported argument to suggest that it's a major factor. Worth noting that AQ has had the most success in entrenching itself in environments such as pre-2001 Afghanistan, Yemen,m and Somalia, where neither information technology nor domestic governance exist to any significant degree. I suspect that direct contact through the madrassa network and other physical networks is a more potent (if less fashionable) force than social media. Not saying that these networks don't use social media as they would use any tool available, but I don't see it as a key enabler at all.

You name the places AQ hides, not the populaces AQ targets, in Afg and Somalia. Pre-9/11 I don't think AQ had much traction with Pashtun populaces, and there is not much governance in Somalia to revolt against. Yemen is both, a great place to hide for AQ and Yemeni and Saudi insurgents. Technology does not help one hide, it allows one to run a networked, mult-nodal approach to UW over a vast area, and coordinate terrorist attacks over an even larger area.

But more importantly, because one cannot "create" insurgency through UW, but can only leverage insurgency where it already exists; the advances in info tech are driving social evolution across many populaces feeding a growing discontent with governments that show little appetite to evolve as well to meet the growing, changing expectations of their people.

Motivations, issues, etc all vary widely. Insurgency, however is political. If not political it isn't insurgency. So yes, it is always about grievances with governance. Certainly other types of instability exist as well, tied to criminal activity and other issues unrelated to governance. Lumping these together by their symptoms and tactics leads to clumsy approaches intended to create stability. Attacking symptoms can suppress those symptoms, but ultimately makes the underlying problems worse. The fact that most insurgencies get involved in criminal activities to fund their movements, and that many large criminal enterprises can grow to challenge government muddies the water, but my belief is that governments achieve the best enduring effects by focusing responses on root causes and by better appreciating what the primary purposes of various organizations are and focusing on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

You name the places AQ hides, not the populaces AQ targets

---

AQ's targeting of populaces has only gained widespread support when those populaces were supporting a jihad against a foreign invader in Muslim lands. AQ's predecessors gained widespread support for their jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Once that war ended support quickly dwindled and AQ's subsequent attempts to raise war against Muslim governments were failures. It was only when they successfully baited the US into direct military intervention that they regained influence with any significant portion of any populace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Insurgency, however is political. If not political it isn't insurgency. So yes, it is always about grievances with governance.

---

That's true of insurgency, but AQ is not an insurgency, nor has it succeeded in gaining widespread leverage with any insurgent populace. AQ gets support when it fights foreign intervention.

We don't have to try to disable AQ by reforming governments in the Middle East, which is a good thing, since we can't reform governments in the Middle East. We can refuse to provide them with the thing they thrive on: foreign military occupation.

Agree completely that AQ is not an insurgency. AQ conducts UW though, which is the leveraging of other people's insurgencies. Also agree that we cannot "fix" foreign governments and that increasing our presence in the region serves primarily to increase the credibility of those who attempt to convince Muslims that the problems of the Middle East cannot be resolved until our presence is completely removed from the region.

Currently we are heavily invested in CT against AQ, and conflate and aggregate those nationalist insurgents who AQ conducts AQ among as being part of that target set. Yemen and Pakistan and the Maghreb are all poster children for this. Keep CT on the books, but we need to separate and refine our target list. Better we conduct our own UW to out-compete AQ for influence with these populaces and work to help them find more peaceful ways to elevate their grievances.

Currently we also invest heavily in security force capacity building. Here too we also need to refine our approach. Where are we helping a government to maintain appropriate security while it works equally hard to address the reasonable concerns of the populaces groups their nationalist insurgents come from, and where do we serve more to help some government avoid having to make such necessary reforms?

We can't fix these governments, but we should not help them avoid having to fix themselves either. We need to put a finer point on how we think about these threats and look at a significant refresh in terms of how we approach them. Much of this is more diplomacy work than military work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Agree completely that AQ is not an insurgency. AQ conducts UW though, which is the leveraging of other people's insurgencies. Also agree that we cannot "fix" foreign governments and that increasing our presence in the region serves primarily to increase the credibility of those who attempt to convince Muslims that the problems of the Middle East cannot be resolved until our presence is completely removed from the region.

---

Generally agreed, though I'd point out that AQ's attempts to leverage insurgency against established governments (as opposed to pseudo-governments installed by foreign powers) have been generally unsuccessful. What AQ has leveraged successfully is resentment toward foreign military intervention in Muslim lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Better we conduct our own UW to out-compete AQ for influence with these populaces and work to help them find more peaceful ways to elevate their grievances.

---

This is the part where I start getting nervous. I don not like the idea of the US trying to "compete for influence" in environments where our understanding is incomplete or minimal and our efforts to compete for influence are likely to be construed as self-interested meddling, a perception that directly reinforces the AQ narrative. Once we decide to "compete for influence" it's terribly easy for us to try to give people what we think they ought to want instead of working with the many different things they actually do want; it easily becomes an umbrella under which we can pursue intrusive and counterproductive policies. Sometimes the best way for us to undermine the AQ narrative is to step back and leave things alone.

We must always remember that the antidote to bad meddling is not good meddling, it's less meddling. Trying to step in and adjust relations between governments and governed in other countries is not likely to get us anyone's affection and can create a lot of trouble and ill will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

We can't fix these governments, but we should not help them avoid having to fix themselves either. We need to put a finer point on how we think about these threats and look at a significant refresh in terms of how we approach them. Much of this is more diplomacy work than military work.

---

Where are we actually allowing governments to avoid having to fix themselves? That seems to me to somewhat overrate the extent and effectiveness of our efforts.

Sometimes it's less about military or diplomatic engagement than it is about stepping back, letting nature run its course, and recognizing that it isn't always about us.

As I look at the problem, there are essentially three fundamental dynamics at work that the US broadly bundles up under the the tactical, symptomatic heading of "war on terrorism."

1. Revolution Insurgency. (multiple, across many nations and populaces)

2. Resistance Insurgency. (Of a sort, also multiple and against several nations)

3. Unconventional Warfare. (Networked, ran by a Non State Actor targeting both of the dynamics above, or more perhaps more accurately, the support for opposing the conditions driving both of the above.

Revolution seeks to employ illegal and often violent means to force change of some part or all of some government. This is internal to a state between the government and those who are governed by that government. Revolutionary forces drive Arab Spring, the Shia aspect of insurgency in Iraq, the aspect of the Taliban insurgency taking refuge in Pakistan, the Palestinians against Israel, etc. Revolution is political, and while it often manifests to look like war or warfare, due to the unique nature of and between the parties is best classified and treated as a civil emergency.

Resistance is a natural response by a populace to some foreign presence that is exercising what is perceived by that populace as undue and inappropriate control over their general system of governance. It can be very overt, as in the German occupation of France in WWII, or Roman occupation of countless countries, French occupation of Algeria or Indochina, British occupation of India, Malaya, etc. But who says the occupation has to be physical to trigger this resistance effect in a populace?? During the Cold War the US-led efforts helped liberate many populaces from the colonialism they experienced prior to WWII (and turned a blind eye on others in favor of European allies seeking to recover their lost possessions); but also began to impose a systematic of intervention and manipulation of governance designed to build a belt of countries with governments committed to containing the expansion of Soviet influence. Not to debate the pros and cons of the containment strategy, it was largely tolerated by those governments and populaces it impacted as it was rationalized as being better than the alternative. As such it did not trigger the "resistance" response. Once the Soviet threat faded, many of the more autocratic regimes, primarily in the Middle East and elevated into power or at least protected by their alliance with the US-led West, opted to sustain the status quo. This was good for business and appeared good for security, so the US opted to sustain the status quo as well. this "virtual occupation" was no longer the lesser of two evils, so the moods of the many populaces affected by it began to change. The corresponding acceleration of the information technology breakthroughs also served to accelerate these changing perspectives, and conditions of resistance began to grow. Resistance against this external influence deemed as excessive in the eyes of those who live under the governments affected by it. That is the only perception that matters. The intent or the perception of the influencing party is totally irrelevant. Equally, the intent or perception of the influenced government is totally irrelevant as well.

Unconventional Warfare is the leveraging of someone else's insurgency, or multiple insurgencies belonging to several others, for ones own purposes. The Soviets and the US both employed UW throughout the Cold War in a form of "pawn warfare" as the competed for influence across the 1/3rd of the world not within their respective spheres. Similarly, al Qaeda employs a networked approach to conduct UW to leverage the conditions of insurgency in an effort to support their organizational goals today.

While revolution is political, and is best resolved by reshaping governance to better meet the evolving requirements of the mosaic of populaces under any particular government; Resistance is best resolved by a appreciating what is considered inappropriate and excessive about one's foreign "presence" and simply removing that offensive situation.

It is not about what AQ thinks or says. They are largely irrelevant, bottom-feeding exploiters of the situation. Yes they have a message, and an opinion on both the Revolutionary aspects of the Middle East as well as this Resistance aspect of the Middle East; but it is exaggerated noise intended to inflame and shape events to support their organizational goals. Like a petulant child throwing a tantrum because they want something that is not theirs to have. One can fixate and focus on such a child, or one can spank and/or ignore such a child. The latter is usually best, but we are so damn focused on the child. Better we focus on the Resistance.

The Revolutionary issues are internal to each state and must be worked out between those governments and those populaces, and any externally shaped solution will be presumptively illegitimate. That is the root problem of our approaches in Iraq and Afghanistan, as that the excessive role of the US in shaping those conditions places such an extreme presumption of illegitimacy upon them that they will both struggle to ever work through that short of a follow-on revolution to get to a more legitimate solution. (this is not legal legitimacy found in the recognition and and acceptance under the law, but rather natural legitimacy found in the recognition and acceptance of the people affected directly by this government).

The key for the US is to focus on how to re-shape our approaches to the middle east to reduce the perceptions that are triggering the Resistance response. This does not mean cut and run on our interests; this does not mean "abandon" our allies (though in truth, most were never true allies, and have abandoned us and their people long ago in their selfish pursuits of wealth and power). Not what AQ thinks or says; not what our own rhetoric thinks or says; but what the affected populaces actually think and feel. This is not a military problem, and frankly I see multiple signs that the current administration largely gets this and is working to address it. They may not think of it in terms of defusing this resistance to our virtual occupation of the region, but they are working in what is generally the right direction.

For the larger conventional force there is little role at all. Go home and prepare for real wars. They will come, and we must be prepared to deter and defeat them. For SOF, certainly there is a role in "spanking the child" of AQ. but focus specifically on AQ, there is no role for us in "spanking the child" of the many nationalist revolutionary movements directed at these many governments of the region (other than one of ensuring the actual parent is not too abusive in their own efforts). But we do need to be among and understand the populaces in areas where we deem our interests to be vital. Like "mad dogs and Englishmen" SOF must "go out in the noonday sun" to be among all manner of people in all manner of locations, most often in very benign and non-military kinds of ways, to be eyes and ears to gage the levels of revolution and resistance among them.

So, to this thread: The War on Terrorism is NOT the correct label, and is our largest foreign policy mistake in the past 40-50 years. It is a label that focuses attention on the symptoms of the least important aspect of this larger dynamic at work. Far better if we labeled it "The war on inappropriately outdated US foreign policy"; at least then we would be focused in the right direction.

I think we can continue talking about it for days without convincing each other as we all have our own point of view. Whatever is happening in the current scenario of world is regrettable and there's chaos everywhere. You can't blame AQ for everything, in the end we must remember that it was our government that created it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saveus

... in the end we must remember that it was our government that created it.

---

Ah, ... no.

That is the fantasy of a certain part of the political spectrum in Western countries, but it's fantasy. They self organized out of already radicalized groups in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We found them and gave them arms and some training. To claim that as some sort of act of "creation" is simply and completely false.

The roots of the current problems in the Middle East stretch back hundreds of years. The state of those countries today is what their leaders - secular, religious and cultural - have made them over all that time. The stoking of anger over the current state of their countries is a technique used by the malignant and/or insane to gain their own advantage.

Letting them off the hook for their responsibility might feel good to certain domestic elements of Western nations, it might even help them gain political advantage among the low information part of their electorates, but it makes thing much worse for the world in general and Moslem countries in particular.