Put on your thinking caps and visualize yourself before the President (or Prime Minister) and answer his question, "what is the best way to counter terrorism?"

Looking forward to seeing the discussion develop on this topic.
thanks
DJ

well this is a tricky one,

where can i start,
i beleive the current policy of the US and britain is working.

the military actions in afghanistan have scattered al quida(spelling?) into the wind, and apparently destroyed its main base of operations.
it no longers appears to function as a coherent group.

the war waged against the finances of terrorism, freezing bank accounts, blocking drugs traffic( a direct funding resource of terror) also seems to be working,

increased security on both sides of the atlantic is making it more and more difficult for terrorists to operate in western countries, and increased powers for governments in dealing with terror will hopefully minimise the casualties and damages should any major attack take place.

the regular and well publicised arrests of terror suspects and damage limitation exercises in this country make me think we would be better prepared for an attack.

an example would be when it was feared a SAM attack was being planned at heathrow, large numbers of infantry troops and even light armour was rapidly available at the airport.
this show of strength was hopefully discouraging for terrorists, and encouraging that a reaction force is there ready and waiting.

one thing that i do see though, through war against middle eastern countries, who according to dubya, 'harbour terrorists' will do much to breed the next generation of suicide bombers and murderers.

take the israelis for example, they are subjected to regular horrific attacks on their citizens,
and as a country with an incredibly powerful military, respond by using force the terrorists have no defence against, such as heavy armour, aircraft etc.

the use of this force in the refugee camps the terrorists use as bases does much to create the next generation of suicide bombers.

what are your opinions on this?

cheers

joe

HumInt...nothing, like nothing beats boots on the ground.....Jim

Joe--- well, there is an interesting side bar to the principle point of the discussion, "how do you preclude creating more terrorist?" I believe that we need to produce more Churchills and Thomas Jeffersons and understand that there will always be bad guys. The simple goal should start with education. We need to communicate to the people of the Middle East that there is a better world. If people appreciate the economic contribution, for example, we can collectively make, destruction becomes less attractive. Employment means less idle hands and minds. When the Israelis (for some darn good reasons) bulldoze homes and treat people like dirt , how can one expect them to do anything but fight back. Golda Meir once said "the war will stop when Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews." If you can bring about that end state, we'll all sleep better at night.
DJ

Interesting and soon to go "non-PC"

Destroy their nests - as was done in Afghanistan

Destroy their support - As was done in Iraq and Libya (Qadaffi got the messge ), freeze/seize their assets

Allow no safe harbor - may require covert ops, probably already happening

Enlist other countries that are suffering - Suadi Arabia may finally have gotten the message, Colombia, Phillipines, Russia, France, Pakistan, Indonesia all have their internal and/or external terrorists

The liberal mantra that poverty creates terrorism is doo-doo (++) Terrorism creates poverty!!!! Businessmen do not want to open factories in countries with rampant terrorism, people that can will leave a country where it is too dangerous to live. Just look at the improvemetns aleady in Afghanistan :-)

How's this for starters

Its too simplistic to say shoot them, shoot them all. That will breed more terrorists, arresting them breeds more terrorists, striking back after an act of terror breeds more terrorists...

How do you deal with a culture with a fundamental, generational hatred of non-muslims? A culture where the infidels can be killed and to die for islam is to die a martyr and enjoy paradise and the 72 virgins?

One way to defeat them is to not allow them the tools of their trade. (Easier said than done) To cut off their flow of money and when you find them - kill them.

Also, its a cultural change. Teaching tolerance to a culture that is intolerant is very difficult. Moving a culture from the 17th century into the 21st - nearly impossible. Educating children in something other than the Koran - mind boggling.

So with thinkingcap on (my brain hurts) I really come up with more questions than answers. I do not envy either President Bush or PM Blair - the "peace" in Iraq is more deadly than the war. Israel and Palestine have still not learned to love their children more than they hate each other. Old hatreds go deep, cultures take generations to change.

However, as President Bush stated, the war on terrorism is long term and unlike any war ever fought by the world bit by bit, cell by cell, defences are strengthened and terrorists are sent to their reward. The war on terrorists will be won.

I remember the saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I think the west should have taken a long hard look at WHY they are so despised be the middle eastern countries. I can't help but think that the US and to a lesser extent British governments have a lot to answer for in the recent past.
The old addage "Win their hearts and their minds will follow" rings true.

I think it may be a bit tough to win the "hearts" of a culture that thinks burying women accused of adultery up to their necks in the dirt and throwing stones at them until they are dead is an okay way to mete out "justice."

Just a thought...

Shaun

I think Ranger hit the nail on the head, but there was one thing that was said soon after 9-11 on a news show that stuck with me. I can't remember the name of the person but he stated that we may have to recruit people "with blood on their hands".
Everything we are doing now is working IMHO, but we are also only hitting the outerside of the network.
Something this vast and scattered must be infiltrated from the inside and recruiting people that use to be part of it could be a possibility.
I don't know how it would be done, but the suggestion on that news show has stuck with me.
Yes Qadaffi got the message, but with what he knows of the way the networks works could be a source of intel that we have never had before.
Anyway I just thought I'd throw that out there as another possibility.

Paul

Some thought provoking responses. Here's what I derive from the input:
1. Terrorism is centered in largely Muslim countries
2. Negotiating with Terrorist is a non option
3. Retailiating against or precluding terrorism is a policy bedrock
4. Current efforts in Irag and Afghanistan appear to be working and offer a hope for the future

Comments?
DJ

I share your thoughts here too.

I think the first and best step so far is to take the battle to the enemy - and not wage the fight here on our soil.

I think the second is mentioned above - to know one's self perhaps is the route to knowing one's enemy. Understanding what has transpired to force this action against us is key to understanding how to stop it. Not every government's actions are considered "just" when viewed from different eyes - regardless of how "noble" supporters espouse their virtues.

Today, I think we've taken step one, and are kinda in mid-step towards the second step. But, I see little in the way of "understanding" what and why things are happening coming about because of the thrust/counterthrust of conflict. These are indeed sad times...

Gunnie

Looking at Gunnie's response prompts me to ask --- is there a firm US policy to deal with Terrorism that clearly articulates what we will do?

Nope.

I think President Bush took a step towards that with his speech after 9/11 - but - a lot has been forgotten in the time since. The establishment of a Department of Homeland Security was a clear step towards improving the way the government handles internal agencies - though it is still a work in progress.

But, there hasn't really been a "Monroe Doctrine" issued by the government or President Bush. I think this is why a lot of people react with shock and horror when the government takes action. I think a new "Monroe Doctrine" would at least make it plain and clear to what length and ends the US Government will take in dealing with Terrorist threats domestic and abroad - and would go a long way to quelling conspiracy theories and vicious attacks from dissenters here at home and abroad.

Without a clear statement - every action the Administration takes becomes subjected to wild speculation and defense - ignoring the real reason behind it. It is always easier to speculate than to think back to the genesis of the action(s).

Until this "Doctrine" is made - the field for controversy will remain fresh for all who like to play on it...

Gunnie

Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those people who think or feel that the United States is always right. I think in the past this country had an "ABC" based foreign policy. "Anybody But Communists." We backed an awful lot of despots because if we didn't the Soviets were going to. We propped up regimes that we shouldn't have. I think it will take a while for the people in those countries to forgive us for those transgressions.
That said, I don't understand what we did to force the first attack on the World Trade Center or the events of September 11th. I understand that Bin Laden thought the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia was a transgression. Hence the attacks on the USS Cole and the Khobar Towers. While I am no fan of the House of Saud, either, those troops were there because the Saudi government wanted them there. Why wasn't some office building in Saudi Arabia targeted?
Eco-terrorists are burning down SUV dealerships and Ski lodges because they perceive those things to be a threat to the environment and feel strongly enough about those issues to take destructive action. Anti-globalization activists torch a Starbucks every once in a while to make a point. PETA torches drug research facilities. Right to Lifers fire up pipe bombs outside women's clinics. Everyone has a cause now, and a lot more groups don't have a problem voicing their concerns with a bomb blast.
I keep hearing from various media sources they we need to make an effort to understand "why they hate us." Why do they? I have an SUV and my little sister is the head of a genetics lab at a University in North Carolina. Does that make me a target, too?
I honestly don't get it.

Sorry for the mini-rant, and I sincerely hope I did not step on anyone's toes...


Shaun

EDIT Just read Gunnie's post. I think he is absolutely right. Everything from the vague color coded threat level to the flight cancellations over the holidays with no explanation were mistakes as far as I am concerned. No one knows were they as individuals or the gov'ment stands. UNEDIT

Shaun-- a consistent question asked anytime we discuss this subject is ----- "Why are they doing this? What do they want?"
Any takers on either or both of those questions?
DJ

I think the US "meddling" with other countries' governments could be a prime consideration when looking at why they are now targetted. The US government is perceived by many countries to put their own interests first to such an extent that they will support corrupt regimes if it will help the US economically. If Saddam ever comes to trial I'll bet there would be quite a few US politicians having sleepless nights worrying about what would be revealed about their support for him in the Iraq/Iran war. The US support for Isreal regardless of their actions towards the Palestinians is also an example of how many Muslim countries come to see the US as evil. Iran in the past had always had friendly relations with the US until they were set to nationalise the oil companies, the US destabilised the regime and this led towards the problems of the 1970s. I once saw a British MP [Tony Benn] read out a list of the countries that the US has dropped bombs on since WW2, it was frightening. The US have put themselves into the role of the World's policeman and this comes with a price.

Hmmm - lots of good food for thought here. I think in past "times" here on Site - this post might ignite a "flame war". But, hopefully, not this time!

Grandma always said it is most difficult to look at one's own self in the mirror. For whatever reason(s) prompted past US Government actions/interventions abroad - are they the genesis for the current "war"? I say "war" because in a historical sense (the purpose of this Forum Topic) have many or all of these actions created today's situation?

Likely - I agree with brandydoguk - and the perceptions/conclusions are sound. Since we don't have the technology and ability to go back and change the past history - is the current "war" justified as acts of revenge/retribution for past transgressions, perceived or actual?

Considering the past history (the last century) - would the current conflict "end" if the US withdrew support for Israel? Pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Stayed out of the Southeast Asian theatre? Pulled out of Europe? Do today's problems really have a origin in the European conflict that lead to the First World War - and was the US introduction some kind of affront to the combattants - to go back even further? Would have everything been "okay" if the US hadn't been around at all - or gotten involved?

I ask all of this in a historical sense because I really don't think if the US pulled out of all of these areas today, denounced support for Israel, returned troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and even made peace with North Korea that things would change. I also think that if the US stayed out of those events almost 100 years ago that things today would not be Utopian by any stretch of rational thought.

Instead of cowering under their sheets at night dreading what Saddam might reveal about past dealings, I think US Senators actually dread what would happen if the US stopped trying. Saddam was supported by many other leaders in other countries other than the US, it seems we (humanity) are our brother's keeper in the world we make. Can't pin that one on the US all alone.

Other than all that - nice post brandydoguk!

Gunnie

Current US/British policy re. international terrorism is essentially sound. What is going to cause problems (as always has in the past) is when other states (particularly european) try to establish 'understanding' with some of these groups. Networks like Al Queda work best with division of opinion, Europe contains as many 'high-value' targets as the continental USA. Europe is more vulnerable and has far more porous borders, delinquency amongst illegal immigrants is on the increase, access to weapons has never been higher (particularly from the ex-soviet empire) . Europe is not losing the war against terrorism, it has already lost it. Few european politicians are prepared to put there heads on the line and introduce the kind of measures needed to stop a) Funding b) equipping and c) recruitment of terrorist groups. Hell will freeze over before the EU makes a coherent stand against the groups which are constantly growing within Europe. 9/11? Oh no it couldn't possibly happen here ...Jim

Well, reading the last three posts, it appears that "perception" of US hegemony spawn terrorist. I am not completely buying the argument. If US presence or actions overseas are causing or inciting terrorism then (it seems to me) someone must be so adverserly effected that they are willing to lose their life to stop this "perceived" (I emphasize the word) US action. Who is so harmed that they want to kill us to stop the damage?
DJ

I guess I'm going to be blunt....Kill 'em all and let God sort it out. Those guys in Iraq are shooting at transport planes and MEDEVAC Choppers clearly marked with crosses. as to Al quida. Well I for one don't forget the horror of 9/11. Is it working. I would say yes. We have seen an increase in homeland security and I truely believe we have probably blunted several proposed attacks on our soil.

My one worry with this is the fact that many of these terrorists are so willing to die for their cause, and if one gets killed before he has comitted his atrocity it spawns many more wanting revenge for his death. I agree that the toughest possible measures should be in place to prevent any more successful terror attacks, but the security forces must get it right every time, the terrorists only have to get lucky once. Surely there should be a concerted effort to remove the reasons behind why they hate the west so much. I'm sure that the economic might of the west could be brought to bear, reduce poverty in these countries, improve education, things like that. Would it be possible one day to make them actually LIKE us instead of hating us?

Brandy-- the indiscriminate destruction of property and lives is what I argue against. Everyone who is from the Middle East is not a terrorist anymore than every Japanese American was a potential saboteur during WW II. You cannot just steretype people because they emanate from a given region, practice a religion or do not have blond hair and blues. It isn't like any of us said to our parents "I want to be born here." So, I support your points on retaliation and prevention. But, we have to be dang sure we hit the right place with the right force. What will destruction of the West (if that's what they are after) do for the Al-Quaeda organization? They must have an envisioned end state. What do you think?
DJ

I have to agree with some earlier comments that our response and increased steps to prevent a recurrence of 9/11 has preveneted another attack on US soil, to date. I believe 9/11 was a result of failure to respond during the 90s with force, to previous attacks against American interests. After the Al Quida organization was severely disrupted by the attack on Afghanistan, they started against softer targets - American embassies in Africa and a club in Indonesia - But I think they did more harm to their own cause by killing mostly non-Americans.

I also have to agree with DJ's comments about being careful in our attacks. One problem the Israelies are having, is collateral damage and casualities during some of their retaliations and attacks on Hamas targets. The coalition has tried very hard to minimize collateral damage, and this has helped in Afghaniztan and Iraq.

Brandydog has noble sentiments. The problem is, the hatred of the west goes back over a 1000 years to the times of the crusades and maybe even earlier to Rome. There will always be bloodshed here. Look at the history. The Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites Babylonians, Persians....................... its never-ending. Do you think there will ever be Peace in this region? I'll bet the moon will be colonized before then.

There is no way we can stop them, we can suppress them, that's about it. I think the thing with them is their refusal to move ahead into 21st century, these people are fixiated on their 13 century idea of JiHad, whilst thier chieves are riding in the refit private Jet has gold casted toilet.

Their leaders also encourage this kind of teaching , so they can be easily manipulated. Until they learnt that Jihad is a lousy business, and until then they will just piss their lives away in some remoted training site wishing for the next Jihad instead of getting a good job, and start a model building hobby...