09-10-2004, 03:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2004, 04:16 PM by Occhidiangela.)
EDIT: For excremental spelling and poor word choice.
What do you mean by war? As Pete so lucidly points out, the misuse of that term confuses meaning and understanding. (Hey, Chaer will want to chime in here with a comment, perhaps, on how Nietzsche is right, in that language itself is an obstacle to understanding . . . or some such point.) Another 19th century {amateur} philosopher, Clausewitz, defined war as a political act of force intended to impel an opposing state, which by extension could apply to extra national organizations, to do one's will, or to stop doing "X" "Y" or "Z." The inverse also works. The war, the Jihad, that Al Qaeda and other terror organs, or the IRA of the 1970's, is waged by extranational organizations against states in an attempt to use violence to impel the others to their will.
If you eliminate the organization, you win. Cut out all the cancer cells. To do that, you will probably have to cut a lot of flesh other than the cancerous tumor. That includes many highly placed international figures, bankers, businessmen, and sympathizers who fund and provide safe haven to the extra national organizations . . . to say nothing of the nations who do so.
Is an Army the best tool for that job? Probably not in most cases, though it can play a part. The Taliban, state sponsors of terror, went down before American armed might, but the activity still goes on at a different level. I'd say that in may cases, assassination, financial assault, and the exposure and execution of those supporting the terror cells are the steps to take. Extradition would help.
The international community, and many of its leaders, are too cowardly to take such steps, knowing that their own complicity, or the complicity of some of their friends, will be exposed. They will lose face, money, and possibly their livelihood. It is a tangled mess.
Let me tell you something very real. In Afghanistan, today, a "war on terror" is being waged by a combination of means. Look at the size of the country. Then, look at how many troops are there. Look over at Iraq, and consider how many troops are there. Look at the mix of forces in Afghanistan, then at Iraq. (I have to insist you do your own homework, to keep this conversation "public domain.")
What most of us don't see are the sneaky spy stuff, the back door deals, exploitation of Information Age tools (read any Dan Brown novel) , and downright blackmail that go on behind the scenes. I am involved, and I barely have any visibility on such means. I know somewhat of the concepts because I wrote professional papers, much of them now shredder fodder due to perishability of an idea, on the subject.
I must stop there so as to remain "public domain."
But back to what happens in "Phase X" of the political act of suasion in chaning the shape of the international playing field. You have to stay engaged. The football game "done in time for Bar B Q" model of war is complete crap. We are STILL in Germany after 59 years of post conflict engagement. Think about that. Japan as well.
Clausewitz again. See the second line in my sig. That bumper sticker is rife with meaning. Play is continuous.
As to success:
Example 1. Defeating a terrorist organization can be done via violence, I offer you again the Bader Meinhof gang. However, it was done via police and paramilitary techniques.
Example 2. The Symbionese Liberation Army. Went down in a violent debacle.
These organizaitons were, however, small potatoes compared to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and for that matter, Al Qaeda. In these well funded and dispersed organizations, Internet and Cell Phone enabled, the rich hand behind the man in the AK-47, like the cartel king in a drug running organization, is who has to be exposed and taken down. Along with a good many of his thugs.
F-16's with JDAM's are not the answer to that problem. A .50 cal sniper rifle, an opportunity, and a steady hand on the trigger are part of it. A good intelligence organization is THE critical tool. Next most important is multinational cooperation to deny safe haven.
Which brings us up to what has been an intense national security question for decades.
Is state sponsored assassination a valid policy tool in a nation of laws, a nation that supports an international community of laws?
If I go pure Clausewitz, I'd say "yes," as the leader is a, or the, center of gravity: (NOte: Are you listening Kim Jong Il?) Saddam listened, and he had extraordinary measures in place to prevent being assassinated by a host of folks who hated his guts. Osama as well, for his part, is just as careful.
I will then use Clausewitz to judo my argument: What is the aim, and what is the Follow On Policy for After the Killing Has Stopped? Better not get into a campaign or war if you a) don't fully understand its nature and B) don't understand your long term aims.
In the contemporary world, how many nations will sign up, by the way, so both the methods and aims of assassination as a political tool, when they have the impotent International Criminal Court, biased against the law abiding and wealthy, to delegate their risks to?
You find the answer to that, and you can make a fortune as a consultant to any number of governments. Hell, I'll vote for you for President! (PS, I can't, since you were not born in the US)
Occhi
Quote:I just think that you cannot end terrorism using war (or whatever you want to call it) if you have some examples I will be happy to hear them and change my opinion
What do you mean by war? As Pete so lucidly points out, the misuse of that term confuses meaning and understanding. (Hey, Chaer will want to chime in here with a comment, perhaps, on how Nietzsche is right, in that language itself is an obstacle to understanding . . . or some such point.) Another 19th century {amateur} philosopher, Clausewitz, defined war as a political act of force intended to impel an opposing state, which by extension could apply to extra national organizations, to do one's will, or to stop doing "X" "Y" or "Z." The inverse also works. The war, the Jihad, that Al Qaeda and other terror organs, or the IRA of the 1970's, is waged by extranational organizations against states in an attempt to use violence to impel the others to their will.
If you eliminate the organization, you win. Cut out all the cancer cells. To do that, you will probably have to cut a lot of flesh other than the cancerous tumor. That includes many highly placed international figures, bankers, businessmen, and sympathizers who fund and provide safe haven to the extra national organizations . . . to say nothing of the nations who do so.
Is an Army the best tool for that job? Probably not in most cases, though it can play a part. The Taliban, state sponsors of terror, went down before American armed might, but the activity still goes on at a different level. I'd say that in may cases, assassination, financial assault, and the exposure and execution of those supporting the terror cells are the steps to take. Extradition would help.
The international community, and many of its leaders, are too cowardly to take such steps, knowing that their own complicity, or the complicity of some of their friends, will be exposed. They will lose face, money, and possibly their livelihood. It is a tangled mess.
Let me tell you something very real. In Afghanistan, today, a "war on terror" is being waged by a combination of means. Look at the size of the country. Then, look at how many troops are there. Look over at Iraq, and consider how many troops are there. Look at the mix of forces in Afghanistan, then at Iraq. (I have to insist you do your own homework, to keep this conversation "public domain.")
What most of us don't see are the sneaky spy stuff, the back door deals, exploitation of Information Age tools (read any Dan Brown novel) , and downright blackmail that go on behind the scenes. I am involved, and I barely have any visibility on such means. I know somewhat of the concepts because I wrote professional papers, much of them now shredder fodder due to perishability of an idea, on the subject.
I must stop there so as to remain "public domain."
But back to what happens in "Phase X" of the political act of suasion in chaning the shape of the international playing field. You have to stay engaged. The football game "done in time for Bar B Q" model of war is complete crap. We are STILL in Germany after 59 years of post conflict engagement. Think about that. Japan as well.
Clausewitz again. See the second line in my sig. That bumper sticker is rife with meaning. Play is continuous.
As to success:
Example 1. Defeating a terrorist organization can be done via violence, I offer you again the Bader Meinhof gang. However, it was done via police and paramilitary techniques.
Example 2. The Symbionese Liberation Army. Went down in a violent debacle.
These organizaitons were, however, small potatoes compared to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and for that matter, Al Qaeda. In these well funded and dispersed organizations, Internet and Cell Phone enabled, the rich hand behind the man in the AK-47, like the cartel king in a drug running organization, is who has to be exposed and taken down. Along with a good many of his thugs.
F-16's with JDAM's are not the answer to that problem. A .50 cal sniper rifle, an opportunity, and a steady hand on the trigger are part of it. A good intelligence organization is THE critical tool. Next most important is multinational cooperation to deny safe haven.
Which brings us up to what has been an intense national security question for decades.
Is state sponsored assassination a valid policy tool in a nation of laws, a nation that supports an international community of laws?
If I go pure Clausewitz, I'd say "yes," as the leader is a, or the, center of gravity: (NOte: Are you listening Kim Jong Il?) Saddam listened, and he had extraordinary measures in place to prevent being assassinated by a host of folks who hated his guts. Osama as well, for his part, is just as careful.
I will then use Clausewitz to judo my argument: What is the aim, and what is the Follow On Policy for After the Killing Has Stopped? Better not get into a campaign or war if you a) don't fully understand its nature and B) don't understand your long term aims.
In the contemporary world, how many nations will sign up, by the way, so both the methods and aims of assassination as a political tool, when they have the impotent International Criminal Court, biased against the law abiding and wealthy, to delegate their risks to?
You find the answer to that, and you can make a fortune as a consultant to any number of governments. Hell, I'll vote for you for President! (PS, I can't, since you were not born in the US)
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete