RAND study - terrorism is law enforcement issue

Crashk said:
April 30, 2003
The Crime Of The Century:
A Never-Ending "War Against Terrorism"
by Thom Hartmann

"...Like every President since George Washington, Bill Clinton knew that nations only declare war against nations. While armies deal with rogue states, police deal with criminals, be they domestic or international.

Like Germany's response to the Red Army Faction, Italy's response to The Red Brigades, and Greece's response to the 17 November terrorist group (among others), Clinton brought the full force of the criminal justice system against McVeigh, and even had Interpol and overseas police agencies looking for possible McVeigh affiliates. The result was that the trauma of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing was limited, closure was achieved for its victims, the civil rights of all Americans were largely left intact, and the United States government was able to get back to it's constitutionally-defined job of ensuring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens...

To continue using our military against a criminal organization will only compound the horrific crime of 911, because armies aren't particularly good at police work.

It's time to restore civil liberties to Americans; rein in an Executive Branch intoxicated by warfare; and hand over to American and international police agencies the very real and very big job of dealing with the remnants of al Qaeda around the world, and prevent a recurrence of 911 by investigating who was involved and how they pulled it off in the first place.

Anything less will simply perpetuate this crime of the century."

Told ya so back then, but I was called a traitor, looney, sympathiser, America hater, troop hater, banned for life from Hannity's web site for posting this and herded into a 'free speech zone'.

All this was not in the Republicon party's plan for America. They turned huge profits and maintained power from this 'war of choice' and thats the bottom line. When are you on the right going to realize you've been manipulated all these yrs by a regime of traitorous criminals?
Click to expand...
Comparing Clinton's "handling" of McVeigh to 9/11? What a pimple head.

As for the other comparisons, there are two significant differences with those scenarios compared to what the U.S. faced in responding to 9/11.

First, Red Army Faction, Red Brigades, and November 17 were all domestic terrorist organizations to the country mentioned. If the U.S. were to develop a home-grown major terrorist organization, then our law enforcement would be the force to which we would turn to handle the situation. Al Queda was NOT domestic to the U.S.

Second, in all instances the country in question received wide cooperation from the international community. No nation gave red army, red brigade or 11/17 factions sanctuary to confound bringing them to justice. While the U.S. received international cooperation from many nations, we did NOT receive cooperation from the one nation it was crucial to go after the organization responsible for 9/11. Instead, Afghanistan deliberately continued to give Al Queda sanctuary.

Those two major differences require a different approach in how a nation responds to a terrorist attacks. Had Afghanistan cooperated, we would have coordinated with their law enforcement to chase down Al Queda. But they did not cooperate, giving us the choice between simply allowing Al Queda to continue to thrive within their sanctuary granted by Afghanistan, or using military force to go after Al Queda anyway. The first choice is and was not acceptable.
 
On the other hand, if you read the reports of Sir John Stevens about the use of murder by Northern Irelands Police force, their use of Protest terror organizations to kill those member of the IRA that they didn't think they could successfully prosecute, you would not think that the police are always the best method of combating terrorism either.
 
Socrtease said:
On the other hand, if you read the reports of Sir John Stevens about the use of murder by Northern Irelands Police force, their use of Protest terror organizations to kill those member of the IRA that they didn't think they could successfully prosecute, you would not think that the police are always the best method of combating terrorism either.
Click to expand...

To me, it's a question of scale. Terror is simply a method. Historically, the most effective deterrents to that method have involved not just police, but good intelligence & a certain level of covert operations. There is corruption at all levels, and nothing is perfect; the argument is more that the heavy-handed military approach which is our current focus is not just ineffective, but counter-productive.

There will be times when it is appropriate to use our military in a limited capacity to thwart terrorist efforts. What the RAND study confirms is that the philisophy which has guided our actions since 2003 runs counter to our goals, and has been a mistake; we need to acknowledge that & learn from it, and completely re-think the way we approach this problem. Something like "shock & awe" may appeal to our base need for action & vengeance after an attack so viscerally effecting as 9/11, but it is not smart policy, and it does not make us safer.
 
Onceler said:
To me, it's a question of scale. Terror is simply a method. Historically, the most effective deterrents to that method have involved not just police, but good intelligence & a certain level of covert operations. There is corruption at all levels, and nothing is perfect; the argument is more that the heavy-handed military approach which is our current focus is not just ineffective, but counter-productive.

There will be times when it is appropriate to use our military in a limited capacity to thwart terrorist efforts. What the RAND study confirms is that the philisophy which has guided our actions since 2003 runs counter to our goals, and has been a mistake; we need to acknowledge that & learn from it, and completely re-think the way we approach this problem. Something like "shock & awe" may appeal to our base need for action & vengeance after an attack so viscerally effecting as 9/11, but it is not smart policy, and it does not make us safer.
Click to expand...
I think RAND is over simplifying the effect our invasion of Iraq has had on our invasion of Afghanistan. Again, the circumstances in Afghanistan forced a military response as we could not tactically or strategically allow Al Queda to hide behind the Taliban. But then we fucked up and took on Iraq in addition to Afghanistan. Doing so caused several things to occur that detracted from our efforts in Afghanistan.

First, it split our efforts. Not only split them, but caused us to view Afghanistan as a secondary effort whereas it should have been our ONLY effort. The long term consequence of that is we did not have the force structure necessary to keep Al Queda and Taliban from making a resurgence which must now be quelled. It also minimized our ability to pursue and intercept Al Queda elements before they reached the haven of Pakistan border lands.

Second, it allowed anti-U.S. elements to paint us as aggressors, invading whomever we please. The invasion of Afghanistan was (and is) reasonably defensible - they openly supported the ones who attacked us and refused any hint at cooperation. Iraq cannot be justified. And by taking on Iraq in an unjustifiable invasion and occupation, it throws doubt on our intents and purpose for being in Afghanistan - further hindering our efforts.

I guess I would say that I would agree with Rand that using law enforcement - to include cooperation between international law enforcement agencies - is the best way to deal with terrorism, but ONLY if it is possible to gain that needed element of international cooperation. Our law enforcement, by itself, is not enough to keep us safe. And when, as in Afghanistan, a nation state not only refuses cooperation, but is known to actively support the activities of a terrorist group who attacked us, THEN it is both appropriate and necessary to use military force in pursuing the enemy.
 
"Those two major differences require a different approach in how a nation responds to a terrorist attacks. Had Afghanistan cooperated, we would have coordinated with their law enforcement to chase down Al Queda. But they did not cooperate, giving us the choice between simply allowing Al Queda to continue to thrive within their sanctuary granted by Afghanistan, or using military force to go after Al Queda anyway. The first choice is and was not acceptable."

...Towards the end of that same month of October, 2001 Mohabbat was successfully negotiating with the Taliban for the release of Heather Mercer (acting in a private capacity at the request of her father) when the Taliban once again said they would hand over Osama Bin Laden unconditionally. Mohabbat tells us he relayed the offer to David Donahue, the US consulate general in Islamabad. He was told, in his words,that "the train had moved". Shortly thereafter the US bombing of Afghanistan began..."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

"The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/nov/11/afghanistan.iraq

"Rove and Bush realized that if they simply branded Osama as the criminal thug that he was - the leader of an obscure Islamic mafia with fewer than 20,000 serious members - they wouldn't have the super-villain they needed for George W. Bush to be seen as a super-hero. If Bush only authorized a police action, he'd miss a golden opportunity to position himself as the Battle Commander of The War Against Evil Incarnate."

http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=38
 
We had lots of political capital in the world to get help in getting Osama. bush blew it all with his you are with us or against us cowboy style rhetoric. and insisting on invading Iraq.

Now McCain is ranting pledging to get Osama...

Sheesh.
 
uscitizen said:
We had lots of political capital in the world to get help in getting Osama. bush blew it all with his you are with us or against us cowboy style rhetoric. and insisting on invading Iraq.

Now McCain is ranting pledging to get Osama...

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a boondoggle with multiple consequences on multiple levels that are just starting to really dig in.

I do not agree with Rand that use of military force was wrong in Afghanistan.

To Crashk:
I need to research the claims that Afghanistan offered cooperation. I would think if those claims were true they would have been used against Bush long ago - especially considering the brain dead rhetoric about how Clinton was offered OBL and turned it down.
 
Rand was correct on the invasion of Iraq, correct on failed US efforts at nation-building, and absolutely correct on the failed mission in Afghanistan.

In fact, it hardly takes a study even by an organization like Rand to recognize that the war on terror is every bit as failed as the war on drugs.

What has the US gained in return for nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, tens of thousands of dead and wounded US soldiers, and the loss of American influence, power, and stature all over the world?

Simple question .. or at least, it should be.
 
What has the US gained in return for nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, tens of thousands of dead and wounded US soldiers, and the loss of American influence, power, and stature all over the world?
//

Ohh that is easy 4 more years of Bush neo rule.

Ohh but you did say gained didn't you....
 
uscitizen said:
What has the US gained in return for nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, tens of thousands of dead and wounded US soldiers, and the loss of American influence, power, and stature all over the world?
//

Ohh that is easy 4 more years of Bush neo rule.

Ohh but you did say gained didn't you....
Click to expand...

I did say gained .. but you are correct with what the US got.

Strange how it's so difficult for Afghanistan/war on terror warmongers to simply explain the benefits of the war on terror.
 
You know GoodLuck, BAC brings up a really good point. What about the war on Drugs? We have been using The Army in South America and the USMC right here on our southern border for drug interdiction. Drugs are bad mmmKay, and we have decided that Military action is warranted. I don't know if you have noticed, IT'S NOT WORKING! It has not slowed down the drugs. And in at least one case, the USMC killed a goat herders kid by mistake. Terrorist cells are like roaches, if you spray over here they set up shop over there. I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment that we have to deny them safe haven but the War on Terror seems to be alot like the war on Drugs. Very small enclaves of men and women making plans and carrying them out without much in the way of actual derailment of the train.
 
Socrtease said:
You know GoodLuck, BAC brings up a really good point. What about the war on Drugs? We have been using The Army in South America and the USMC right here on our southern border for drug interdiction. Drugs are bad mmmKay, and we have decided that Military action is warranted. I don't know if you have noticed, IT'S NOT WORKING! It has not slowed down the drugs. And in at least one case, the USMC killed a goat herders kid by mistake. Terrorist cells are like roaches, if you spray over here they set up shop over there. I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment that we have to deny them safe haven but the War on Terror seems to be alot like the war on Drugs. Very small enclaves of men and women making plans and carrying them out without much in the way of actual derailment of the train.
Click to expand...

The strange and telling irony of this is that the "war on terror" has exploded the cultivation and use of opium in Afghanistan where record crops and profits have been recorded since the so-called war on terror began. Much of those profits have gone into financing the resistance to US occupation and "terrorist" activities.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone given that the CIA used drug money to finance our own terrorists we trained in our own terrorist training camp here in the US .. and we unleashed them, our terrorists, upon Latin America like a plaugue.

Using Afghanistan as the model, should the US terrorist training camp be attacked and should innocent Americans be slaughtered as collateral damage by Latin American countries who are fighting a war on terror?
 
uscitizen said:
Didn't the CIA pretty much help the Taliban start up to fight the USSR in Afganistan ?
Click to expand...
Yes, watch Charlie Wilson's War. They called themselves the Mujahadeen but they were the Taliban in waiting. We even bought schoolbooks for Afghani kids that told them that the white men from Russia were minions of satan and opposed to Allah. Unfortunately, we didn't forsee the consequences of that action. We were just using them to kick the Soviet Union's ass.
 
Socrtease said:
Yes, watch Charlie Wilson's War. They called themselves the Mujahadeen but they were the Taliban in waiting. We even bought schoolbooks for Afghani kids that told them that the white men from Russia were minions of satan and opposed to Allah. Unfortunately, we didn't forsee the consequences of that action. We were just using them to kick the Soviet Union's ass.
Click to expand...

And it worked.

The roots of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be found in Afghanistan where it was bled to death.

What covert role do you think Russia will play in Afghanistan in return?

What role will China and the SCO play?

"In this case the reaction is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an organization that embraces one quarter of the world’s population, from Eastern Europe to North Asia, from the Arctic to the vast steppes and mountain ranges of Central Asia. Formed in 2001, its members include China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The SCO is, in the words of a Financial Times editorial, “everything that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger – who sought to keep Russia and China apart – tried to prevent.”
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/13491/

Russia, China, and the SCO are concerned about the US presence in Afghanistan and our proposed deployment of ABM in the region.

By the way, Iran and Venezula may soon join the SCO. Iran already has observer status along with India, and more importantly Pakistan.

Could the potential to slide into being bled to death possiibly be anymore clear?

Forget about the cowboys and their failed "war" on everything .. could the fraud of Afghanistan .. as with the fraud of Iraq .. possibly be anymore clear?
 
Socrtease said:
You know GoodLuck, BAC brings up a really good point. What about the war on Drugs? We have been using The Army in South America and the USMC right here on our southern border for drug interdiction. Drugs are bad mmmKay, and we have decided that Military action is warranted. I don't know if you have noticed, IT'S NOT WORKING! It has not slowed down the drugs. And in at least one case, the USMC killed a goat herders kid by mistake. Terrorist cells are like roaches, if you spray over here they set up shop over there. I am not saying that you are wrong in your assessment that we have to deny them safe haven but the War on Terror seems to be alot like the war on Drugs. Very small enclaves of men and women making plans and carrying them out without much in the way of actual derailment of the train.
Click to expand...
Fighting terrorism is nothing like fighting drug use. The war on drugs - as it is called - is fighting our own people who want to use drugs, as well as fighting those who supply them. Makes for a big difference.

Additionally, there is no expectation that denying terrorists sanctuary will eliminate terrorism. But it will severely hamper their ability to conduct operations. By keeping them in hiding, rather than operating in the open, they are forced to expend much of their effort simply not getting caught.

If they have someplace to operate out of with impugnity, then they are free to concentrate on planning and training. The only people who need to hide are agents in place, as opposed to needing to hide the entire organization.

The more effort they are forced to expend on organizational security, the less they have to spend on doing nasty things. Forcing them into hiding also forces them to split into fractions. This increases the need for communications, which is something we can hammer at, giving us more clues about what they are planning. If they have a safe haven, their planning communications are limited, thus limiting our ability to intercept intelligence.

The bottom line is that by denying them sanctuary, we force them to react to us, instead of them forcing us to react to them. They are forced into actions they'd rather not take, vastly increasing the likelyhood they'll make mistakes, allowing us to catch them at what they are doing.

When possible, we do all the above by using cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies of the countries involved. But when such cooperation is lacking, then military intervention is an appropriate measure. The situation with Afghanistan was they had for years openly supported Al Queda. I seriously doubt the Taliban would have turned tail as easily as those reports posted imply. I am certain, for instance, the Taliban never had OBL under house arrest as one report claims. The only way to deny safe haven in a country that supports terrorists is to use military force.
 
Is it news to anyone that the ISI, which is an official arm of the Pakistani government, supports terrorists and terrorism? Is that news?

Will US Marines be landing in Pakistan?

Hell no.

Is "shock and awe" on the Pakistan horizon?

Hell no.

The caveat to the "military force" option is make sure the nation you're attacking is small enough for you to get away with it. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq was small enough.

As soon as the US is kicked the fuck out of Iraq it will grow stronger ties with Iran and the SCO.

Just how many more of these "military power" debacles can the US Treasury accomodate?
 
GL - I've seen terms such as "interdiction" used in the rhetoric about the "war on drugs". Sadly the use of "education" rather than faux millitary concepts is much rarer.

As the saying goes, "if all you have is a hammer....."
 
Diuretic said:
GL - I've seen terms such as "interdiction" used in the rhetoric about the "war on drugs". Sadly the use of "education" rather than faux millitary concepts is much rarer.

As the saying goes, "if all you have is a hammer....."
Click to expand...

If only we had a brain ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top