In one way he is right in that it would be desireable to reduce them to nuisance level. Wouldn't that be everyone's dream scenario?

Remember the leftist terror groups of the 70s? The Italian Red Brigades, the German Bader-Meinhoff gang, the American Symbionese Liberation Army? They all eventually shrank into oblivion because they were always on the run, broke and never gaining new recruits.

Islamist terrorists still have safe havens, plenty of funding and are still gaining new recruits. We need the full power of coalition military and intelligence to squeeze them into oblivion as well. And we need more regime changes in a few places.

First off, the "terrorism" in the "War on Terrorism" is not an abstract. It is specifically Islamist terrorism that motivates the deathcult that wrought 9/11 (and Beslan, Bali, WTC '93, Cole, French Hill, bus bombings in Israel, Olympics 1972, etc).

We didn't just defeat Nazism with the death of Hitler, but in the occupation and the unrelenting actions to defeat the ideology of Nazism ...it's marginalization and, to this day, its rejection by moral people. We cannot effectively defeat terrorists without also meeting head-on their ideology. Kerry's deliberate use of an analogy that likens terrorism to criminal enterprises rather than to an anti-human ideology - ie Nazism, fascism, Stalinism -- which we have defeated, is very revealing.

Before 911, Terrism was something we could just rather deal with as part of our criminal justice problem. Didn't matter exactly who undertook Terrism -- we just handled it in the same way we handled a bunch of other criminal problems.

For example, we handled TmcV's Terrist Act via the criminal justice system, and it worked pretty well.

For decades, we've shrugged off a number of Terrist acts worldwide -- some comparatively small, some large. A pipe bomb here, a truck bomb there, and it was all just part of the environment within which the US has lived since the end of WW2.

In the past decade or so, the ante got upped some. What we now face is less Terrism and more like asymmetric warfare. And one of the hallmarks of AW is that it is Not best fought via conventional military force. The usefulness of an M1A1 or an F-16 in AW is problematic.

Terrism has been a staple of internecine AW for a Very Long Time Indeed. The Israelis demonstrated to the world, and especially to the Middle East, its usefulness in convincing an occupying power to abandon the field. There are some really good reasons why it is especially useful for that purpose, not the least of which is because it is the Terrists who get to choose the time and place of confrontation.

But hey -- we knew that already!

The world, however, has changed in some ways that have Nothing whatsoever to do with the Terrism or the Terrists. 911 was notable in that we got to see it Live On The TeeVee. Had it happened in, for example, Singapore, we'd barely have registered it on our collective consciousness, and surely we'd have been well over it by now.

So it isn't Terrism qua Terrism that's a bother -- it's the effrontery that They attacked Us on Our Soil!

Well, that's another thing that's changed too. Prior to 911, there was a terrific upsurge in air transport, with correspondingly little attention paid to the sort of security arrangements I used to run across in, for example, Schiphol in Amsterdam. We were more focused on domestic criminalism -- not Terrism. Our mindset was more about DB Cooper than it was to Muhammad Atta.

That's one of the advantages that Terrists oftimes get. They can spot an exploit a weakness in the system. Once. But Flt 93 demonstrated something reasonably fundamental -- there will Not be another 911 attack again over this nation. There might be a plane blown up in mid-air -- that was common beforehand, and has to do with inspection procedures and personnel mostly. But the passenger on a domestic flight are simply not about to allow another use of an airliner as a missile. Just won't. That window of opportunity for Terrists is now closed. Permanently.

OTOH, there is a WoO for the use of a domestic cargo liner for such a purpose. No passengers, and comparatively fewer crew. Much less in the way of security procedures as well, and lots more room to emplant munitions on board.

If there is another threat from the air, that would be the most likely source.

Fact of the matter is, when even a major Terrist act occurs but seldom, and with comparatively little damage, it really does become more of an ongoing nuisance than a major act. Used to be we'd hear folks making those same sorts of comparisons between, for example, Death by Firearm and Death by Drunk Driving. Which was the greater danger, in terms of Human Life?

There is no complete elimination of Terrism forever and aye. There is no spread of Freedom and Democracy such that each and every individual Out There will become a Good Little Model Citizen and member of the Kiwanis. It isn't the way that Humanity is wired.

We will get a handle on a bunch of it. We'll learn to deal with the residual.

And one of the hallmarks of AW is that it is Not best fought via conventional military force. The usefulness of an M1A1 or an F-16 in AW is problematic.

************************************************************
Another hallmark is that secure sanctuary is necessary for the combatants. Vietnam taught us that. AW must be responded to by a mix of conventional and nonconvential means.

Of course propaganda is a facet too. After the Tet offensive as a fighting cadre the VC ceased to exist, from that point on we fought The NVA even they did not defeat America., we lost that war to the DNC.

Today we see the same multi-front war. Against the Terrorist cadres, who have support from some Nation States and also from political forces in this country

DK: Secure Sanctuary is Not necessary.

Consider the nonsense phrase "insecure sanctuary." It would make no sense at all. It would also be operationally meaningless.

What is necessary is Concealment. That's easy enough to find in any nation in the world.

The 911 Terrists concealed themselves in several different nations, on several different continents. Their "security" was more a function of their capacity to endlessly change their identities, along with the relatively lax security preventive measures taken in most nations at the time.

As for Viet Nam, the Tet Offensive (I happened to be in the middle of a bunch of it) did mostly take out the VC cadre. I remain convinced that it was done deliberately -- that Vo Nguyen Giap wanted control of the war to reside mostly in the North, and that putting the VC into a situation where it could be eliminated in setpiece battles was a reasonably subtle and successful way to do it.

But it was Not the DNC that "lost" the war. That honor resides with RMN et al.

First off, the “terrorism” in the “War on Terrorism” is not an abstract. It is specifically Islamist terrorism

Perhaps that should have been spelled out in the speech then.

We cannot effectively defeat terrorists without also meeting head-on their ideology.

We agree. The problem is we spend too much time making things blow up and too little time meeting head-on their ideology.

I basically agree with Darleen, except for the final dig at Kerry. As I understand what Kerry said, he wants us to win the war on terror so we can get back to treating it like the nuisance crimes he described. I agree that if he said it should be treated as a crime now, today, that would be bad, but he didn't say that.

"First off, the “terrorism” in the “War on Terrorism” is not an abstract. It is specifically Islamist terrorism

Perhaps that should have been spelled out in the speech then."

Except, Wacko, you and yours would have been the first in line to scream "It's RACIST! It's INSENSITIVE! BUSHITLER wants to eat your children!"

I understand perfectly why Bush got exasperated in the first debate: Debating whether or not we are in a war is roughly like debating whether gravity exists. Like Churchill in the 30s, I'm just waiting for the nuke in NYC (or bombs in 10 random Walmarts) that convinces most people we are actually at war. Until then, try and prevent Tranzis like you and the Johns from giving away too much of the store.

WAR ON TERRORISM..you know that term got me to thinking..wonder how many different views I could come up with that term..some say we are fighting thugs,some say extremist,some say its a religious struggle..some just following the crowd..10 people probably 10 different views..but one things for sure,when you have an adversary willing to die for his cause..and proves this point..extreme measures are called for ..if one is prevale...and now..
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041013-121643-5028r.htm

I just wrote on this yesterday. In short, I do see the eventual end of the "terrorism" targeted in the GWOT as being reduced to the purview of law enforcement. As old_timer noted, this is what happened with a lot of the radical '70s groups (basically Communist or Marxist Terrorists as opposed to today's Islamic Terrorists). Don has some good points, but I believe I feel that conventional warfare, while not suitable for some of our intended targets, is still very applicable in addressing infrastructure and support of Terrorist groups.

I do, however, have to express in the strongest way that Don's reference to OKC vis-à-vis the GWOT is just red herring material. As I said in my post, despite any similarities in method and results, McVeigh was just a lone wacko (no offense) with no purpose other than his own. There is a world of difference between postulating protection from a single nut with death and destruction on his mind and protestion against an organized group of nuts with extensive networks and resources. Equating OKC with GWOT is like equating Columbine with Breslan.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: