Terrorism after OEF/OIF

[William F. Owen]

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.

[Bob's World]

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.

[Ken White]

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.

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.

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...