Gee, despite what some people on this forum say, it looks like we are more than holding our own in the fight against AQ.


U.S. cites gains against bin Laden's movement

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally — and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' — as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Entire article

A military force will never "defeat" terrorism in traditional military fashion.
Terrorist acts are criminal acts and should be dealt with accordingly.
If a nation is willing to use its military as a police force rather than a traditional army, gains will be made against terrorism.
The question is, how long will they be willing to stay.

quote:

Originally posted by AnRyan:
A military force will never "defeat" terrorism in traditional military fashion.
Terrorist acts are criminal acts and should be dealt with accordingly.
If a nation is willing to use its military as a police force rather than a traditional army, gains will be made against terrorism.
The question is, how long will they be willing to stay.

Great points AnRyann

quote:

Originally posted by AnRyan:
A military force will never "defeat" terrorism in traditional military fashion.
Terrorist acts are criminal acts and should be dealt with accordingly.
If a nation is willing to use its military as a police force rather than a traditional army, gains will be made against terrorism.
The question is, how long will they be willing to stay.

Explain to me how a "police" force is going to defeat AQ along the Pakistan/Afghan border? Are you going to send the FBI in there to arrest bin laden?

The military has to be involved in the war on terrorism. It appears that the Predator drones are a devastating weapon against the leadership of AQ...the Air Force is responsible for the operation of these drones.

I meant a broader definition of the term "police".
Both Afganistan and Pakistan currently have governments which are allies of the US.
The US is not at war with either country.
The military is there, and in Iraq, in a policing role.
I'm not arguing as to whether they should be there or not or how effective their presence is.
Wars are waged against goverments, not terrorists.
Terrorists have the dreadful advantages of not having to wear a uniform and being able to hide among civilians.
They are not an army, they are criminals.
That's all I'm saying.

AnRyan also has the historical perspective of the British army being used as a police force in Ireland through much of the last century.

quote:

Originally posted by AnRyan:
I meant a broader definition of the term "police".
Both Afganistan and Pakistan currently have governments which are allies of the US.
The US is not at war with either country.
The military is there, and in Iraq, in a policing role.
I'm not arguing as to whether they should be there or not or how effective their presence is.
Wars are waged against goverments, not terrorists.
Terrorists have the dreadful advantages of not having to wear a uniform and being able to hide among civilians.
They are not an army, they are criminals.
That's all I'm saying.

Valid points. Thanks for clarifying.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
AnRyan also has the historical perspective of the British army being used as a police force in Ireland through much of the last century.

Well..part of Ireland..
However, if anything came out of that mess, it would be the experience that that army gained policing a largely hostile area. Something I would imagine would stand to them now in their current role.

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:

quote:

Originally posted by AnRyan:
I meant a broader definition of the term "police".
Both Afganistan and Pakistan currently have governments which are allies of the US.
The US is not at war with either country.
The military is there, and in Iraq, in a policing role.
I'm not arguing as to whether they should be there or not or how effective their presence is.
Wars are waged against goverments, not terrorists.
Terrorists have the dreadful advantages of not having to wear a uniform and being able to hide among civilians.
They are not an army, they are criminals.
That's all I'm saying.

Valid points. Thanks for clarifying.

Good points, all.

There are military components to this - there have to be. But I think that we do ourselves a bit of a disservice by framing this as a "war". I've been thinking about this for a while - let me bounce my thoughts off the group...

Wars, as AnRyan pointed out, are fought against soverign governments, and ultimately involve the control of territory and infrastructure.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the "wars" are over - we won. We are now an occupying force in both nations, working to support nascent civilian governments, rebuild critical infrastructure and protect the civilian population against threats from domestic para-military organizations and their foreign recruits.

At the same time, in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, we are working in a policing role to identify, locate and neutralize threats from Al Queda and associated organizations (and individuals). This is a completely different task, as it involves - at a global level - finance and communications networks, recruiting/propaganda, training sites and clandestine supply lines for weapons and material support.

This second conflict involves the military, but they are not the primary players. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies, local "assets", financial and communications institutions, technical specialists and so forth do most of the work in this side of the conflict.

This is slow, painstaking police work on a global scale, with the added burden of trying to also win over local populations who are actively hostile to our efforts and who provide active support to those who we're trying to catch. It's the old Hearts and Minds gig - but with centuries of cultural and religious conflicts tossed into the mix.

What are your thoughts?

Originally posted by AnRyan:

Terrorist acts are criminal acts and should be dealt with accordingly.
***********************************************

Well, with one exception - criminal acts are dealt with by arrests, trials, convictions and judicially imposed punishments. Terrorists, on the other hand, have to be killed whenever and wherever they are found. They have to be treated as enemy "soldiers" (a term I hate to use for people who usually target unarmed civilians) and cannot be treated as just another class of criminals. The fact that they are not wearing uniforms or fighting on behalf of a national government is irrelevant and, in fact, is a great argument that we should treat terrorists WORSE than the uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation. Otherwise, we end up giving terrorists better treatment and more rights than we gave, say, Nazi SS death squads during WWII.

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
..win over local populations..

That. That's it.
Do that and the fight's over.
There will always be nutters who want to blow up buildings, accomplish the above and at least they'll be easier to catch.
As to how it's done. That's a different matter.

quote:

Originally posted by nixdad:
Originally posted by AnRyan:

Terrorist acts are criminal acts and should be dealt with accordingly.
***********************************************

Well, with one exception - criminal acts are dealt with by arrests, trials, convictions and judicially imposed punishments. Terrorists, on the other hand, have to be killed whenever and wherever they are found. They have to be treated as enemy "soldiers" (a term I hate to use for people who usually target unarmed civilians) and cannot be treated as just another class of criminals. The fact that they are not wearing uniforms or fighting on behalf of a national government is irrelevant and, in fact, is a great argument that we should treat terrorists WORSE than the uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation. Otherwise, we end up giving terrorists better treatment and more rights than we gave, say, Nazi SS death squads during WWII.

I only toss this out as a caveat - there needs to be an aspect of investigation and proof and due process here. Why? Because it's not always possible to clearly discriminate between an active terrorist and the civilian population wherein they hide. Also, how do you differentiate between the terrorist and someone who offers active support (or even passive/inactive support), or who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

We need to get past the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mentality, otherwise we become an unwitting and unwilling part of the terrorist's recruiting and propaganda apparatus.

In other words - we must take the ethical and legal high ground, even when it hurts. It doesn't do us much good to take out a terrorst leader if we kill a bunch of civilians at the same time - there is much less room for that sort of "collateral damage" in this conflict.

We've seen it time and again - a new terrorist is born because their father/brother/sister/child was killed...

Now if we have a clearly identified, known terrorist in a situation where we can reach them - take them out in the most efficient way posssible.

On the other hand, if they are "suspected" terrorists or supporters, arrest and trial is the appropriate response.

Just my $.02

quote:

Originally posted by nixdad:
Originally posted by AnRyan:

Terrorist acts are criminal acts and should be dealt with accordingly.
***********************************************

Well, with one exception - criminal acts are dealt with by arrests, trials, convictions and judicially imposed punishments. Terrorists, on the other hand, have to be killed whenever and wherever they are found. They have to be treated as enemy "soldiers" (a term I hate to use for people who usually target unarmed civilians) and cannot be treated as just another class of criminals. The fact that they are not wearing uniforms or fighting on behalf of a national government is irrelevant and, in fact, is a great argument that we should treat terrorists WORSE than the uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation. Otherwise, we end up giving terrorists better treatment and more rights than we gave, say, Nazi SS death squads during WWII.

I agree with some of what you're saying.
Terrorists are treated worse than uniformed soldiers when caught. Every imprisoned terrorist in the world would be better off if he were granted POW status, I do not agree that imprisoned terrorists who have stood a fair trial should be granted that status.
Terrorism should be dealt with by arrests and trials. It's very easy for us to look at the TV and see houses and villages being bombed by drones because a suspected Al Qaeda member lives there. What about the London bombings and Madrid bombings? The guys who perpetrated those acts lived in those cities. What are you going to do, bomb London? Bomb Madrid?
Why do those civilians who live in those houses in Iraq and Afganistan deserve worse treatment than British or Spanish civilians?
Terrorism is not a war, it's an idea.
As long as it is being fought by force alone, there will always be people willing to sign up to that idea. Always.

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
It doesn't do us much good to take out a terrorst leader if we kill a bunch of civilians at the same time - there is much less room for that sort of "collateral damage" in this conflict.

We've seen it time and again - a new terrorist is born because their father/brother/sister/child was killed...

I agreed with everything you said up until this point. One of the excuses for not hitting bin laden in the 1990's was collateral damage. IMO, the collateral damage is worth taking out AQ's top leadership. And let's face it, whoever these guys surround themselves with are no friends of ours.

quote:

And let's face it, whoever these guys surround themselves with are no friends of ours.

But sometimes they surround themselves with their families and innocent neighbors ... civilians, old women, children. Remember the last ten minutes of "The Kingdom"?

If law enforcement were to uncover a terror cell in Boston, Milwaukee or Albuquerque, we'd certainly be thoughtful about collateral damage when we went after them.

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:
And let's face it, whoever these guys surround themselves with are no friends of ours.

Sometimes true and sometimes not.

Agreed that there are times when they are surrounded by active supporters, but what about when they're not?

As Jack said - are you willing to kill children to reach Bin Laden? Bomb a church?

What about someone much further down the scale - say your friendly neighborhood suicide bomber. Are you willing to take out his neighbors (who may actually be our friends) just to reach him/her? How about the bomber in the first floor of your apartment building or office tower?

Or, how do you deal with someone you only think might be a bomber? Do you wait to see an explosive belt, or do you arrest/investigate?

My point was only that there needs to be a balance between the value of the target and the amount of force applied, and that deadly force is not always the best first option.

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
Agreed that there are times when they are surrounded by active supporters, but what about when they're not?

As Jack said - are you willing to kill children to reach Bin Laden? Bomb a church?

I guess I'm speaking more towards the top tier leadership of AQ, rather than a rogue terrorist.

To answer your question regarding bin laden, the short answer is absolutely. Bin laden only surrounds himself with family members, body guards, and trusted sympathizers. Even when in Afghanistan, he did not trust the locals. So if we located him through satellite imagery or some other form of credible intelligence, it would be derelict not to take a shot at him.

For a lesser valued terrorist, obviously the standards for which you would call in an air strike might change. For instance, we captured (rather than bombed) KSM in a densely populated area of Karachi.

What I am saying is that after 9/11, the gloves have clearly come off, and rightfully so. You can say that this is cowboy rhetoric all you want, but it's the truth. We are dealing with some very serious and very dangerous people. And the safety of civilians and our own intelligence personnel are going to be at increased risk in order to capture or eliminate the enemy.

Guys, you can take the position that we are not "at war" with terrorists but that really doesn't matter. What matters is that terrorists have taken the position (verbally and through their actions) that they are at war with us. We can treat them as criminals but they will only continue to treat us as their enemy, not their victims. As to the "collateral damage" argument, it is a tragic - but ineveitable - part of any successful war. We didn't win WWII, for example, by shying away from civilian casualties even those of our allies. We inadvertently killed thousands of French, Belgian and Dutch civilians because they were unfortunate to have been overrun by the Nazis and were simply "in the way" when we bombed the Germans. We intentionally killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians but didn't seem to create subsequent generations of
enemies of the U.S. Some of the scenarios described above are problematic. If we identify a terrorist cell in, say, England, we should notify the government and expect them to take care of the problem. If that cell is in Afghanistan, there is little reason to think that the government can or wants to get involved. That's when we have to do the dirty work and that's why we rightfully invaded that country. Again, the sad, tragic, horrible fact is that innocent people die in every war including our own Civil War. That is the reason why they say that war is hell.

The example of WWII shows the fundamental difference between war and terrorism.
Germany and Japan would eventually have run out of raw materials, supplies, trained fighting men and the will to fight. In fact that is why they lost the war and that is how any country or government loses a war.
Terrorism will never run out of terrorists.