Ask Me Help Desk - What if?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Israel has a closed border, troops in the streets and check-points through-out the country- yet bombings and shootings continue. You can give-up all your liberties and still not be safe.

Actually, no they don't. In Israel proper, violence is minimal. Only in the "occupied territories" does the violence continue. That was not always the case, of course, but it is now. There were two things that made this true: the building of the security fence and Israel's military operations in the West Bank and Gaza. In other words, forward deployment to attack the terrorists in their own back yard (as Bush is doing with the military in Iraq and Afghanistan) and increased security measures at home (can anyone say "Patriot Act"?) are working together to decrease violence in Israel. The Israelis are using the same tactics that we are and having the same result... an increase in security and decrease in terrorist activity at home.

And Israel is still one of the freest countries in the entire world. I have never heard an Israeli complain about any losses of rights. They still vote, worship, gather, speak, protest against the government and produce press in complete freedom. Even the peace-now crowd that is against operations against the Palestinians doesn't claim that the government has taken away any of their liberties.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSnownw

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Giving me a list of casualties of terrorism unrelated to the threat at hand, does not do much to bolster your argument.

The threat at hand is international terrorism. Every example that I gave you is an example of international terrorism. Furthermore, virtually every terrorist attack against the USA since 1978 or so has been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. In what way are these "unrelated" to the current war against Islamic terrorism?

Quote:

The fact is, this is not terrorism instituted by governments, but religious extremists. We are surely giving these people a reason to fight, and they don't fight with conventional weaponry.

Really? And what was the reason for them to attack during the 40+ times they attacked us prior to our invading Iraq? They don't need excuses to attack us. They've been doing it without any excuses for 40 years. Now that we are finally fighting back, you call it "giving them a reason to fight".

Quote:

One of the reasons we haven't had any major attacks on US soil, is because they don't need to come here to attack us. As near as I can tell, they're doing a pretty good job at the moment.

Not against American civilians, they aren't.

Quote:

that we cannot sustain the type of fighting we are currently employing. We do not have the man power, funds, or will of the people to do so.

The only reason we don't have the will of the people is because of the ongoing media campaign against the war. And the fact is that over the past 6 months, the "will of the people" has clearly been shifting back towards support of the war. Success breeds success.

As for manpower, the standing US military is made up of 1.4 million people, according to DOD statistics. We currently have less than 200,000 troops there. We can not only sustain the current troops levels in Iraq, we could increase them if we had to, and still maintain a presence in Iraq for decades. The claims of a shortfall of manpower are full of crap... a red herring meant to divert us from staying in Iraq.

Quote:

This is a short-term answer to a long-term problem, and we've made it more difficult and costly on ourselves by using our military.

Over the past 4 years, we have killed thousands of terrorists, captured thousands more, broken up major cells, crippled the terrorists' ability to attack us here at home, freed 50 million people from tyrannical regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, stopped Libya's WMD program, and sustained major military operations against terrorists in two countries, and intelligence operations against them in many others. Exactly how much is all that supposed to cost, and at what level of difficulty? I'd say we're getting off cheap, all things considered. But that's just me looking at the big picture.

Quote:

I do not claim that treating 9/11 as a criminal act would have solved all our problems, but I think the future will show that our reaction was a big mistake.

Perhaps. I would have personally chosen Iran and Syria as my targets. But the fact is that no matter what target we would have chosen the enemy would have flocked to that location to fight us as they did in Iraq. In the case of Iraq, however, al Qaeda and the Abu Nidal organizations were already present, and given Saddam's intrasigence where the UN Resolutions were concerned, and his violations of the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991, Iraq was a legitimate target.

But if you are trying to argue that we should not have taken any muilitary action in response to the deaths of 3000 American citizens, and that that would have been a better option than taking the fight to the enemy in the Middle East, you are being naïve. For 40 years, we took no effective military action against terrorism in the USA. The result was more terrorist attacks. But since military action was undertaken, the number of attacks has dropped to ZERO. The proof is in the pudding.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The only reason we don't have the will of the people is because of the ongoing media campaign against the war. And the fact is that over the past 6 months, the "will of the people" has clearly been shifting back towards support of the war. Success breeds success.

Hello El:

How is it, that the media is responsible for Bush losing?? But Bush is da man when he wins?? It's the SAME media, isn't it?

You guys slay me.

excon

I didn't say that the media is responsible for Bush "losing". Especially since he hasn't lost. But they are responsible for the mood of the civilian population, which is poor DESPITE Bush's successes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The threat at hand is international terrorism. Every example that I gave you is an example of international terrorism. Furthermore, virtually every terrorist attack against the USA since 1978 or so has been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. In what way are these "unrelated" to the current war against Islamic terrorism?

What you seem to be missing, is that terrorist activity and the perpatrators of this activity are not constant. We are no longer dealing with small terrorist groups that occasionally manage to attack us every once in a while. We are forging many small cells together, who have had no problem enlisting new members. They have more money, better weapons, and more motivation than ever before to attack us. This isn't the same game. You CANNOT defeat terrorism with the military. It is impossible. Terrorism exists because the groups cannot fight against another nations military, and if you cannot see the problem with using the military to fight terrorism...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Not against American civilians, they aren't.

You seem to think that terrorist only want to attack civilians. The reason they do this, is because it's opportunistic. Now we have people over there, so they attack the most opportunistic targets, which happen to be our soldiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The only reason we don't have the will of the people is because of the ongoing media campaign against the war. And the fact is that over the past 6 months, the "will of the people" has clearly been shifting back towards support of the war. Success breeds success.

I don't know where you got that, perhaps the "will of the people" means conservative groups, because I haven't seen any numbers that would support that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

As for manpower, the standing US military is made up of 1.4 million people, according to DOD statistics. We currently have less than 200,000 troops there. We can not only sustain the current troops levels in Iraq, we could increase them if we had to, and still maintain a presence in Iraq for decades. The claims of a shortfall of manpower are full of crap... a red herring meant to divert us from staying in Iraq.

Why do you think we're only going to be fighting in Iraq in the future? If you think this will stay contained to Iraq's borders, you need to reassess the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Over the past 4 years, we have killed thousands of terrorists, captured thousands more, broken up major cells, crippled the terrorists' ability to attack us here at home, freed 50 million people from tyrannical regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, stopped Libya's WMD program, and sustained major military operations against terrorists in two countries, and intelligence operations against them in many others. Exactly how much is all that supposed to cost, and at what level of difficulty? I'd say we're getting off cheap, all things considered. But that's just me looking at the big picture.

Killed thousands of "terrorists," right. They said we killed a few more Viet-Cong than we actually did as well. Lets ask the people over there if they agree with those numbers. You seem to believe we can trust media reports sometimes, but not at others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Perhaps. I would have personally chosen Iran and Syria as my targets. But the fact is that no matter what target we would have chosen the enemy would have flocked to that location to fight us as they did in Iraq. In the case of Iraq, however, al Qaeda and the Abu Nidal organizations were already present, and given Saddam's intrasigence where the UN Resolutions were concerned, and his violations of the cease-fire agreement he signed in 1991, Iraq was a legitimate target.

For military action against the country, Iraq was not a legitimate target.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

But if you are trying to argue that we should not have taken any muilitary action in response to the deaths of 3000 American citizens, and that that would have been a better option than taking the fight to the enemy in the Middle East, you are being naive. For 40 years, we took no effective military action against terrorism in the USA. The result was more terrorist attacks. But since military action was undertaken, the number of attacks has dropped to ZERO. The proof is in the pudding.

Again, I still don't see how you can use this to bolster your argument. The terrorists of today, are not the terrorists of yesteryear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

How is it, that the media is responsible for Bush losing??? But Bush is da man when he wins????? It's the SAME media, isn't it?

You guys slay me.

Ex, surely you wouldn't argue that the incessant hand wringing, caterwauling and doom and gloom from the media, Democrats in congress and Hollywood lefties had no significant effect on the mood of the American people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSnownw

What you seem to be missing, is that terrorist activity and the perpatrators of this activity are not constant. We are no longer dealing with small terrorist groups that occasionally manage to attack us every once in a while. We are forging many small cells together, who have had no problem enlisting new members. They have more money, better weapons, and more motivation than ever before to attack us.

And they still haven't been able to do so.

Quote:

This isn't the same game. You CANNOT defeat terrorism with the military. It is impossible.

The letter written by Abu Musab al Zarqawi to al Qaeda leadership, published in June 2006 would seem to indicate otherwise.:

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces.
This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.
As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:
1) By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.
2) By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
3) By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
4) By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
5) By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardising its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.
6) By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.
7) By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

These are Zarqawi's words, not mine. Full text of the document can be found here.

Quote:

Terrorism exists because the groups cannot fight against another nations military, and if you cannot see the problem with using the military to fight terrorism...

Gee, this is a new one on me. After 20 years of studying military history and military science, I have finally come across a new argument. We shouldn't use our military to fight terrorism because the enemy can't fight against our military. I guess Sun Tsu was wrong... don't use the enemy's weaknesses against him. If he can't fight against your army, you should accommodate him by using some other method to combat him so that he can fight back more effectively.

In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic.

If the terrorists can't fight against our military, that is the specific reason to force them to have to confront our military, at a place and time of OUR choosing. We choose the ground, we choose the tactics, we choose the timing, and we outnumber and outgun the enemy, with a better-trained force. This is straight out of military science 101.

The terrorists cannot abandon Iraq without it destroying their ability to recruit and conduct operations elsewhere. They must continue to fight there in order for them to have any hope for a future. Thus they are forced to try to hold their position in Iraq, where our troops destroy them wherever we come in contact with them.

We choose the methods of attack, because our military has greater flexibility, training and equipment. If we wish to surgically strike the terrorists, we can do so. If we want to carpet bomb them, we can do that too (not saying we should, just that we can). If we want to go toe to toe with them using guerilla tactics, our special forces (SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, etc.) will tear them new ones. If we want to use the same tactics of hidden bombs to take them out, we have the best military engineers in the world trained in explosives and demolition. There is no method of fighting that the terrorists can use that we can't use better than them.

In short, the enemy cannot abaondon the field of battle. They can only hide and be hunted and destroed or face us and be destroyed. Using the military to fight terrorism is EXACTLY what we should be doing.

Quote:

You seem to think that terrorist only want to attack civilians. The reason they do this, is because it's opportunistic. Now we have people over there, so they attack the most opportunistic targets, which happen to be our soldiers.

And when they do, they die. I'd rather have the terrorists attack a soldier in Iraq who is armed and trained to defend himself and has the backup forces to do so than an unarmed civilian on Main Street, USA. Cold-blooded as it sounds to most civilians, that is the soldiers' job... to face the attack so that civilians don't have to. That is what the military exists for, and why billions of tax dollars go towards maintaining that military.

Quote:

I don't know where you got that, perhaps the "will of the people" means conservative groups, because I haven't seen any numbers that would support that statement.

Several polls in June, July and the beginning of August showed a turnaround in the numbers, with more and more people supporting the surge, General Patreus, and the US military operations in Iraq as a whole. If I can find them again, I'll post them. But I had previously posted those numbers here and on another board.

Quote:

Why do you think we're only going to be fighting in Iraq in the future? If you think this will stay contained to Iraq's borders, you need to reassess the situation.

I don't. Eventually the terrorists will realize that Iraq is a losing situation for them. They'll go elsewhere. And when they do, we need to be ready to follow them no matter where they go and start the process all over again, as many times as is necessary. But if the terrorists leave Iraq and peace breaks out there, then it would only prove what I have been saying... military action against terrorism works.

Quote:

Killed thousands of "terrorists," right. They said we killed a few more Viet-Cong than we actually did as well. Lets ask the people over there if they agree with those numbers. You seem to believe we can trust media reports sometimes, but not at others.

I could make the same argument to you. You seem to think that we can believe the media when it has bad things to say about the war and the situation in Iraq, but not when it reports on enemy casualties.

But I don't trust the media. I check their claims through military websites, independent bloggers, and where possible, raw data. I also use coroboration from multiple media sources.

Quote:

For military action against the country, Iraq was not a legitimate target.

It most certainly was. But that is an argument that has been picked apart hundreds of times over the past 4 years, and I don't feel like doing it again now. Read my prior posts on the subject.

Quote:

Again, I still don't see how you can use this to bolster your argument. The terrorists of today, are not the terrorists of yesteryear.

Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists. The bomb-making methods are more sophisticated, their communication techniques are better, but the motivations, the recruitment techniques, the targets of recruitment, and the targets of terrorist activities are exactly the same. The MOVEMENT is the same. There is no significant difference between Abu Nidal of the 1970s and 1980s, Osama bin Laden of the 1990s and 2000s, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the present. Their motivations are exactly the same. The terrorists of today are exactly the same as the terrorists of yesteryear.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Gee, this is a new one on me. After 20 years of studying military history and military science, I have finally come across a new argument. We shouldn't use our military to fight terrorism because the enemy can't fight against our military. I guess Sun Tsu was wrong... don't use the enemy's weaknesses against him. If he can't fight against your army, you should accomodate him by using some other method to combat him so that he can fight back more effectively.

In case you hadn't figured it out, I'm being sarcastic.

If the terrorists can't fight against our military, that is the specific reason to force them to have to confront our military, at a place and time of OUR choosing. We choose the ground, we choose the tactics, we choose the timing, and we outnumber and outgun the enemy, with a better-trained force. This is straight out of military science 101.

The terrorists cannot abandon Iraq without it destroying their ability to recruit and conduct operations elsewhere. They must continue to fight there in order for them to have any hope for a future. Thus they are forced to try to hold their position in Iraq, where our troops destroy them wherever we come in contact with them.

We choose the methods of attack, because our military has greater flexibility, training and equipment. If we wish to surgically strike the terrorists, we can do so. If we want to carpet bomb them, we can do that too (not saying we should, just that we can). If we want to go toe to toe with them using guerilla tactics, our special forces (SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, etc.) will tear them new ones. If we want to use the same tactics of hidden bombs to take them out, we have the best military engineers in the world trained in explosives and demolition. There is no method of fighting that the terrorists can use that we can't use better than them.

In short, the enemy cannot abaondon the field of battle. They can only hide and be hunted and destroed or face us and be destroyed. Using the military to fight terrorism is EXACTLY what we should be doing.

I'm sure that's what the British were thinking while losing the war for American independence. The ability to kill terrorists when the process of killing them creates more, is not going to win the war. We are fighting the mythical Hydra here, and unless the US wakes up to this, we are fighting a losing battle. Just because we are currently making "progress" doesn't mean that we are going to win the long-term.

You can be as sarcastic as you like, and point to the multitude of military strategy books you have read all you want. But, because the military cannot win against terrorism, none of that knowledge can be applied here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I don't. Eventually the terrorists will realize that Iraq is a losing situation for them. They'll go elsewhere. And when they do, we need to be ready to follow them no matter where they go and start the process all over again, as many times as is necessary. But if the terrorists leave Iraq and peace breaks out there, then it would only prove what I have been saying... military action against terrorism works.

That is one scary paragraph there. I cannot fathom how someone could actually believe what you just wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I could make the same argument to you. You seem to think that we can believe the media when it has bad things to say about the war and the situation in Iraq, but not when it reports on enemy casualties.

I am well aware of this, which is why I'm skeptical of everything I read, and read multiple outlets in an attempt to better inform myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Islamic terrorists are Islamic terrorists. The bomb-making methods are more sophisticated, their communication techniques are better, but the motivations, the recruitment techniques, the targets of recruitment, and the targets of terrorist activities are exactly the same. The MOVEMENT is the same. There is no significant difference between Abu Nidal of the 1970s and 1980s, Osama bin Laden of the 1990s and 2000s, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the present. Their motivations are exactly the same. The terrorists of today are exactly the same as the terrorists of yesteryear.

Believing that, is the reason we will lose this war. I don't recall, during the times listed, any large and sustained attack on Islamic people, or continued occupation. Regardless of what we call it, that is how they see it. Fighting religious wars has sure ended well in the past, yes sir.

Hello again:

I think you're BOTH right about terrorism. You can't fight it with the military, and you can't ignore it.

Terrorism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Terrorists operate somewhere with some nations approval either tacit or not. Bush's GOOD WAR, the one in Afghanistan, was based upon the premise that the regime is held responsible and went to war against the regime who themselves AREN'T terrorists, but they support 'em and they have army's.

If the terrorism occurs in isolated pockets where the regime has no knowledge of their activities, those terrorists should be treated as criminals, and we shouldn't invade those nations.

If we're serious about terrorisim, AND WE'RE NOT, then terrorism would be defeated that way.

But, when we give a wink and nod at the REAL sponsors of terrorism, like Saudi Arabia, then we're going to lose, lose lose - just like we're doing.

excon

It must be noted that I am not against a military presence. However, the all out war against terrorism that we have begun is not going to solve this problem. Not only that, it will make it worse, that is (I believe) an absolute fact.

We are just going to have to wait and see what the future holds, because it is there that our arguments will be tested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSnownw

I'm sure that's what the British were thinking while losing the war for American independence.

Different situation. First of all, until the Battle of Saratoga, the Brits were kicking our collective butts quite handily. Second, the great equalizer was the fact that the Americans had good generals, good equipment, and were equivalent to the Brits (or close enough) in terms of tactical and strategic ability. Third, they outnumbered the Brits. And fourth, we had the help of the French (the last time the French were actually useful in a fight). Of those four factors, only one is true of the situation in Iraq: the terrorists have outside help from Iran. It's still not enough to overcome all the other advantages we hold.

Quote:

The ability to kill terrorists when the process of killing them creates more, is not going to win the war. We are fighting the mythical Hydra here, and unless the US wakes up to this, we are fighting a losing battle. Just because we are currently making "progress" doesn't mean that we are going to win the long-term.

The terrorists are having recruitment problems. They are losing support in Iraq. This isn't a hydra. It's more of a T-Rex... it's already dead, the brain just hasn't gotten the message yet.

Quote:

You can be as sarcastic as you like, and point to the multitude of military strategy books you have read all you want. But, because the military cannot win against terrorism, none of that knowledge can be applied here.

And yet you offer no proof from history to back up this claim that a military force cannot defeat terrorism, whereas I can offer quite a few examples of cases where a military force has defeated guerrilla movements that use the same tactics as the terrorists. Military science proves otherwise.

Quote:

That is one scary paragraph there. I cannot fathom how someone could actually believe what you just wrote.

To quote Yoda: "And that is why you fail."

That is why you still think that a military force can't defeat terrorism... you aren't willing to take the actions necessary to do the job. I am. The military is. That's why I know that they can and will win. You can't believe it because you would never do it. I do believe it because I would. And that's why I would win and you would lose.

Quote:

Believing that, is the reason we will lose this war. I don't recall, during the times listed, any large and sustained attack on Islamic people, or continued occupation. Regardless of what we call it, that is how they see it. Fighting religious wars has sure ended well in the past, yes sir.

Really? You never heard of how Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia, the Mongols, the Ottomans and the Brits attacked Islamic countries, conquered them in the face of strong guerrilla resistance, maintained control, defeated the guerrillas, and continued their occupations for decades, even centuries? I've heard of those cases. Then there's the way the military powers in China and North Korea and Vietnam have done the same there against guerilla resistance movements in those countries. The Iranian government is in the process of doing the same in Iran... care to take bets on whether the Iranian military can put down the anti-government resistance if the USA fails to get involved? They've done it in the past. Saddam did it against the Kurdish resistance after the first Gulf War. There are any number of cases of terrorist and guerilla movements being thoroughly and utterly defeated by military forces.

In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a single case of a guerilla/terrorist movement that has been successful at accomplishing its goals. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are the USA in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan, and those were only because of political situations at home, not because of the strength of the guerrillas in fighting these military forces.

Put simply, military force has ALWAYS been successful at fighting terrorist/guerrila movements if those running the war are willing to take the necessary actions to win that war. With the "surge", we are exhibiting that willingness. And there has never been a successful guerrilla force that has defeated its military enemy without outside assistance. Only in the past few years has this idea that "military force can't beat terrorist groups" become "popular", and then only among those who do not understand military history. The reality is quite different from this popular opinion.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Um... roughly... ZERO!!! That was my entire point, DC. Before 9/11, we suffered attacks by international terrorists roughly every year, sometimes twice a year or more. Since 9/11, the number has gone down to zero.

Elliot

You forget, no, I’m sure you don’t, you will call it something else…John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed ten people and wounded three more-for three weeks in October of 2002 they terrorized Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia, and mesmerized the local and national media.
A series of articles in The Washington Times described John Allen Muhammad’s conversion to Islam, and his later break with the Nation of Islam; but the NOI was not militant enough for Muhammad, later he become involved with a group called Jamaat ul-Fuqra (Arabic for “community of the impoverished”), a terrorist organization founded by a notorious Pakistani cleric, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani.

“The group was founded in New York by Sheikh Gilani in New York in 1980. Its current headquarters is in Hancock, New York, and it has various compounds, or Jamaats, scattered throughout the United States and Canada, notably in Colorado, New York, Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia.”
Gates of Vienna: Jamaat ul-Fuqra in Virginia, Part 1

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war; and it is a pity the press play it all down.

And the guy who shot up Louie B. Armstrong Airport (who was shouting Allahu Akbar, and yet was later reported as a "disgruntled employee")

Bombings at OU and Georgia Tech, UCLA--to mention two. More out there which we're not hearing about?

And all the while, the media soft-pedaled the connection to Islamism!

The post you wrote about Israel is so distorted I will not even comment more on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Really? You never heard of how Rome, Greece, Babylon, Persia, the Mongols, the Ottomans and the Brits attacked Islamic countries, conquered them in the face of strong guerrila resistance, maintained control, defeated the guerrilas, and continued their occupations for decades, even centuries? I've heard of those cases. Then there's the way the military powers in China and North Korea and Vietnam have done the same there against guerilla resistance movements in those countries. The Iranian government is in the process of doing the same in Iran... care to take bets on whether the Iranian military can put down the anti-government resistance if the USA fails to get involved? They've done it in the past. Saddam did it against the Kurdish resistance after the first Gulf War. There are any number of cases of terrorist and guerilla movements being thoroughly and utterly defeated by military forces.

In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a single case of a guerilla/terrorist movement that has been successful at accomplishing its goals. The only exceptions I can think of offhand are the USA in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan, and those were only because of political situations at home, not because of the strength of the guerrillas in fighting these military forces.

Put simply, military force has ALWAYS been successful at fighting terrorist/guerrila movements if those running the war are willing to take the necessary actions to win that war. With the "surge", we are exhibiting that willingness. And there has never been a successful guerrilla force that has defeated its military enemy without outside assistance. Only in the past few years has this idea that "military force can't beat terrorist groups" become "popular", and then only among those who do not understand military history. The reality is quite different from this popular opinion.

Elliot

I will not say that your argument lacks merit, but I cannot agree with your reasoning. I concede that in the past, countries have been successful in putting down extremist resistance. However, I don't understand why you believe that attacking terrorism militarily overseas is going to keep the US safe from terrorism. It is rather easy for one terrorist to do a lot of damage to civilian targets inside the US. These people are willing to kill themselves to take out others. I don't see how attacking them in Iraq, is going to help keep us safe here. It takes very little energy to build an explosive device and set that off in a crowded place when the person has no qualms with surviving the attack.

You cannot fight an idea with a gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSnownw

I don't understand why you believe that attacking terrorism militarily overseas is going to keep the US safe from terrorism.

It won’t; it will only help organizations like the following to recruit new members.

The war on terrorism must be fought by the same means they use: Secrecy, infiltration and murder.

The FBI and CIA are the only hope.

“The JF, in its early phase, sought to counter what is perceived as excessive Western influence on Islam. It also concluded that violence was a significant aspect in its quest to purify Islam. In its ideological moorings, the Fuqra regards as enemies of Islam all those who do not follow the tenets of Islam as laid out in the Koran, including those Muslims who they consider as heretics as well as non-Muslims. One of Gilani’s works published by the Quranic Open University in the US and seized in a 1991-investigation instructed his cadres that their foremost duty was to wage Jehad against the ‘oppressors of Muslims’. Members of the group are described as Islamist extremists with much hatred toward their ‘enemies’.”

Jamaat-ul-Fuqra, Terrorist Group of Paksitan

I disagree because you have missed an important distinction. AQ needed State support to carry out almost all their attacks. They still require friendly sanctuary which they temporarily have secured in a region in Pakistan and have been attempting to acquire in Iraq . When they were in Somalia they attacked from there .When they were in Afghanistan they attacked from there .

It is a complete misnomer to call this effort a war against terrorism. I consider it a big failure of the Bush Administration that until recently they have been reluctant to name the enemy .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I disagree because you have missed an important distinction. AQ needed State support to carry out almost all their attacks. They still require friendly sanctuary which they temporarily have secured in a region in Pakistan and have been attempting to acquire in Iraq . When they were in Somalia they attacked from there .When they were in Afghanistan they attacked from there .

It is a complete misnomer to call this effort a war against terrorism. I consider it a big failure of the Bush Administration that until recently they have been reluctant to name the enemy .

They can hold-up forever in Pakistan for all I care; what I don't want, and we do have, is Islamic compounds across America.

PREVIEW: Sheikh Gilani's American Disciples

You are aware that most of the inhabitants of Islamberg are not foreign jihadists but are domestics who were converted in prison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnSnownw

I will not say that your argument lacks merit, but I cannot agree with your reasoning. I concede that in the past, countries have been successful in putting down extremist resistance. However, I don't understand why you believe that attacking terrorism militarily overseas is going to keep the US safe from terrorism. It is rather easy for one terrorist to do a lot of damage to civilian targets inside the US. These people are willing to kill themselves to take out others. I don't see how attacking them in Iraq, is going to help keep us safe here. It takes very little energy to build an explosive device and set that off in a crowded place when the person has no qualms with surviving the attack.

All true. And all of which is the reason that I say that another attack is inevitable. But none of that changes the fact that so far, it has indeed worked. Regardless of whether there is another attack today in the USA, the fact is that for 2,186 days, the longest period in 40 years, we have not suffered an attack. The current methods may not be 100% effective, but they are MORE effective than what was done before.

Quote:

You cannot fight an idea with a gun.

Tell that to the Mongols. Or the Romans. Or the Greeks. The Soviets. Or even the Nazis. They all used military force to kill ideas all the time. People have been using overwhelming military force to kill ideas, or at least force them underground and into hiding, as long as war has existed... which is pretty much all of human history. And if the idea is forced into hiding, it isn't being used to attack US civilians. And THAT is the goal, keeping US civilians safe from attack.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

You are aware that most of the inhabitants of Islamberg are not foreign jihadists but are domestics who were converted in prison.

I have read that; also that “SHEIKH GILANI found his first American recruits by raiding the ranks of an existing American Muslim organization, the Dar ul Islam. At a Brooklyn mosque, Gilani, sporting ammunition belts, preached Islam as the path to a better life and called for fighters to join the holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Under the guise of studying Islam, some of his followers were initiated into the international Islamist movement. Their campaign of crime on U.S. soil began almost at once.

“There is no ironclad evidence that Fuqra's American members today are part of the international conspiracy that threatens us. Rather, the ties are circumstantial and suggestive. What should be made, for example, of the fact that several weekend residents of Fuqra's headquarters compound at Hancock work during the week as toll collectors at New York City bridges and tunnels--considering that the 1993 World Trade Center bombers had plans to blow up the George Washington Bridge and Hudson River tunnels? We also know that in the early 1990s Gilani's U.S. recruits signed an oath saying, "I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah's sake." At the least, it is clear that Daniel Pearl was digging into a very interesting story.
PREVIEW: Sheikh Gilani's American Disciples

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Tell that to the Mongols. Or the Romans. Or the Greeks. The Soviets. Or even the Nazis. They all used military force to kill ideas all the time. People have been using overwhelming military force to kill ideas, or at least force them underground and into hiding, as long as war has existed... which is pretty much all of human history. And if the idea is forced into hiding, it isn't being used to attack US civilians. And THAT is the goal, keeping US civilians safe from attack.

Elliot

All of the groups(excluding the Soviets) you have mentioned ended up being destroyed by that mentality. In that, the process allowed them to overextend themselves enough that they couldn't protect themselves at home.