Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are antagonists who have specific strategic interests that they’re trying to prosecute, and then there are antagonists who are messianic/apocalyptic/insane. Ceding territory, signing treaties and the like would work with the former, but nothing really works with the latter – including perpetual, unrelenting war.
Complete security is impossible. If we consider the “war” to be continuing so long as concert-halls get bombed, then war is perpetual, and the heightened security and diminution of civil liberties is perpetual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
The United States is not the mafia. ... The U.S. is supposed to be better than that. ...
But being “better” is a question of degree. One could argue that many aspects of the modern American security-state recall the schemes and tactics of the totalitarian states of the 20th century. And the justification is very much the same; “we’re surrounded by enemies”, and to “keep our people safe”, all sorts of emergency (but ultimately permanent) measures are needed.
There is a case to be made – though I don’t necessarily agree with it – that a dose of wanton brutality abroad, might allow for less surveillance and security-paranoia at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
...Ever wonder why they didn't kidnap Soviet citizens in Beirut like they did with others?...
Yet it was the very same Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan – and the Western response – that spawned modern nominally-Islamic terrorism. Perhaps it the USSR kept its tanks in Eastern Europe, we’d not have such as restive Middle East today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corerius
Re-installation of new, compliant dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa. Somebody threatenable and bribeable.
Though this may sound like the most cynical realpolitik, it’s a sensible suggestion. Compliant and corrupt, easily blackmailed, tyrannical at home but groveling and sycophantic abroad – from the Western viewpoint, that is perhaps the best kind of leader in tribal regions with “honor cultures”. In other words, a recrudescence of the satraps of ancient Persia.
Problem with Assad is that he's a Russian client... this is a holdover from the Cold War when his father was a Soviet client. There's no good outcome in Syria for us.
In Obama's 2nd term he seemed to back off trying to change things. But yeah, I think you're right... the solution is probably to back strong-men and just look the other way on their abuses.
Yeah. Problem with Assad, beside being a Russian client, is he is a puppet of Iran. Iran is a serious destabilizing force...a contributor to terrorism via Hamas and Hezzbolah, and I dare say a strategic threat (while terrorism itself is more of a tactical threat). Assad is there to stay probably, but the west should not be supporting him. He's not the answer, he's part of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Yet it was the very same Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan – and the Western response – that spawned modern nominally-Islamic terrorism. Perhaps it the USSR kept its tanks in Eastern Europe, we’d not have such as restive Middle East today?
People give to much credit to Afghanistan from that period as the spawn of terrorism. It all happened after the Russian's left, years after. Islamic terrorism was in the middle east way before Afganistan, mostly as a nationalistic movement (PLO, etc). That didn't work to well, but someone had the bright idea to bring up extreme Islamic teachings and there you go. But the mujadeen in Afiganistan were not Islamic extremest. They were Afghan warlords, not taliban. Then the foreigners Islamic fighters like Bin Laden came in to get there street cred, not many, but they had there sh*t together compared to all these warlords who collectively couldn't even agree on the building of a donkey stable. They came to power only afterwards. The same is repeated - Somalia, Libya, Syria.
We are trying to fight a military battle. Short excursions designed to wipe out a specific group of people in a short period of time in a specific location.***
The terrorists are fighting an ideological war, designed to spread terror and their religion over a very long period of time. We think in terms of "it could be done in two years" and they think in terms of "this is likely to take a couple hundred years before we can have a Muslim regime in America". I t requires generations of people to be successful.
I personally am quite a hawk and would reshape the world through military action if that is the decision on the way to proceed. You would be able to ice skate from Turkey to Afghanistan if I had my way, but that is not PC in todays world. Memo goes out at noon. Turn over anyone who is a terrorist...force them out of your house to be captured/shot, or we are coming at five and nothing in our path will survive. Shock and awe? You bet. Civilians, terrorists, foreigners? Anyone in the way will be decimated. The American flag will fly over the entire area as we take control. Reshape the world? You bet. And then on and on until anyone who would think evil toward us would be exterminated. Likely we would control a goodly portion of the world before we are done.
But terrorism would be gone. That is the only way to eliminate an ideologue. Submit, or kill. There is no middle ground.
Sad situation, but that is the reality of the situation. We either do this, or drop by drop, our freedoms will become so restricted that movement/enjoyment will be unable. Papers, scanning, profile, documenting, following every move, every conversation, every contact....we will be so squished by our own safety measures that in effect, we will have no freedoms for fear of being someone "bad".
So how do you win? Scorched earth, I am afraid.
*** Remember those missiles we fired into an air base, or that mother of all bombs we dropped in hills. What effect did any of that have save for killing (maybe) a handful of people?
Yeah. Problem with Assad, beside being a Russian client, is he is a puppet of Iran. Iran is a serious destabilizing force...a contributor to terrorism via Hamas and Hezzbolah, and I dare say a strategic threat (while terrorism itself is more of a tactical threat). Assad is there to stay probably, but the west should not be supporting him. He's not the answer, he's part of the problem.
Iran isn't that much of a threat, except to Israel...but Israel can establish the same policy with Iran that the US established with the USSR...they don't need US involvement for that.
Otherwise, Iran is actually a stabilizing factor in the middle east. Remember that there is an ongoing Sunni-Shiiite war with Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other. That war has gone on for 1400 years and won't end in our lifetimes. It's to the benefit of the West to keep those antagonists entangled within their own theater.
The huge error the West is making right now is in siding with the Sunnis against Iran, which gives the Saudi Arabia plenty of cash and freedom to pursue the advancement of extremist Salafism in the West.
Quote:
People give to much credit to Afghanistan from that period as the spawn of terrorism. It all happened after the Russian's left, years after. Islamic terrorism was in the middle east way before Afganistan, mostly as a nationalistic movement (PLO, etc). That didn't work to well, but someone had the bright idea to bring up extreme Islamic teachings and there you go. But the mujadeen in Afiganistan were not Islamic extremest. They were Afghan warlords, not taliban. Then the foreigners Islamic fighters like Bin Laden came in to get there street cred, not many, but they had there sh*t together compared to all these warlords who collectively couldn't even agree on the building of a donkey stable. They came to power only afterwards. The same is repeated - Somalia, Libya, Syria.
'Way back in the early 90s, US Army scholars were writing about the danger of perpetual Muslim warfare creating a "cloud" of tens of thousands of socially detached Sunni fighters who know nothing but war.
Under "normal" circumstances, men live as farmers, shopkeepers, teachers, fathers, husbands. When they get swept into war, they still long to return to their families and their farms and shops. That's how you get soldiers to agree to peace; they want to go back to their earlier lives.
From the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to today, young men have been swept into combat without ever having known how to live as husbands or fathers or farmers or shopkeepers. They grow to maturity knowing nothing but war...they don't know how to be peaceable.
So they migrate like a cloud of poison gas from war to war, and the new wars create more young men who know nothing but war.
That is what happened in Iraq immediately after Saddam was deposed. That existing "cloud" of foreign Sunni fighters who had been fighting the Soviets migrated to Iraq to replace the Iraqi Sunnis in what was really conflict with Iraqi Shiites.
The local Sunnis (famers, shopkeepers, fathers, husbands) initially welcomed their intervention...but then very quickly realized that these foreign fighters were peace-less barbarians.
The US Army actually went against US policy at that point. The US policy was to turn those areas over to the (mostly Shiite) Iraq government forces. Instead, the US Army forged its own policy of promising the local Sunnis protection from the Shiite Iraq government in exchange for cooperation against the barbarian foreign fighters. The local Sunnis agreed, and that was the success we saw with the "surge" in Iraq. (Ultimately, that situation was unacceptable to the mostly Shiite Iraqi government.)
That "cloud" of detached Sunni fighters who know nothing but war still exists. The ISIS combatants include old fighters from Afghanistan as well as young rebels from Syria. The best bet is to let the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites whittle them down and not give Saudi Arabia and Turkey the freedom to keep ISIS fueled.
I agree with Old Gringo. The most certain way to eliminate absurd religious antagonism is to improve both prosperity and education. The ability to think rationally devastates the purveyors of magic.
I disagree with Ted Bear. Annihilation of the enemy has been the human norm for several thousand years. It has rarely worked because it did not get all of the opposition and the survivors continued to inflict severe damage. The "White Man" devastated the American natives but how much damage have the survivors done to the "White" world using casino gambling?
Ignoring the moral problem with annihilation paving the middle east would destroy most of the world's sources of Opium. That is unacceptable to both the legal and illegal purveyors of the drugs. It would not due the patients dependent on these drugs to eliminate horrendous pain much good at all.
There is no winning this war but at least now we have a leader who will name the problem and not dance around the issue.
We can bomb them to no end but there will always be more to refill the ranks. If America was invaded by a foreign force we would fight them like they do us.
The answer is to pull back and contain the spread of terrorism. We have already seen terrorist attacks on our soil so we need to make sure that does not happen again.
It is not popular but travel bans and reducing refugee programs are a way to stop it. When you think about it why would we want to bring in people from countries where the common chant on the streets is "death to America"?
The fear is homegrown terrorism where a young man is influenced by isis and he travels back and forth to his homeland to receive terrorist training. This just happened in Manchester England.
In the end there is no stopping it but we can all be more vigilant and not be so critical of our elected that are trying to keep us safe. We should be critical of the do nothing rhetoric and those who play the blame game.
Todd, are you afraid of the answer to stopping it?
We kill them, that ends it.
In the end they will force our hand to do what we would rather not do,
else we will perish because they are in the grasp of evil itself.
As long as there are child bearing muslim women among us they will bear muslim killers.
The women are the trojan horse.
Its time for them to go home.
I agree with Old Gringo. The most certain way to eliminate absurd religious antagonism is to improve both prosperity and education. The ability to think rationally devastates the purveyors of magic.
I disagree with Ted Bear. Annihilation of the enemy has been the human norm for several thousand years. It has rarely worked because it did not get all of the opposition and the survivors continued to inflict severe damage. The "White Man" devastated the American natives but how much damage have the survivors done to the "White" world using casino gambling?
Ignoring the moral problem with annihilation paving the middle east would destroy most of the world's sources of Opium. That is unacceptable to both the legal and illegal purveyors of the drugs. It would not due the patients dependent on these drugs to eliminate horrendous pain much good at all.
Poverty being the root of crime is not supported , its completely disproven.
Your logic suggests we lost to the nazis because we killed them and their leaders.
Opioids are 100% artificially mfgered. They are chemically identical to the narcotic derived from opium.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,466,576 times
Reputation: 12187
The majority of Islamic terrorists would likely stop attacking us is we (the West) stopped meddling in their business and stop propping up corrupt governments that force secularism on their people. But some are willing to use violence to force the world to become entirely Muslim.
Iran isn't that much of a threat, except to Israel...but Israel can establish the same policy with Iran that the US established with the USSR...they don't need US involvement for that.
Otherwise, Iran is actually a stabilizing factor in the middle east. Remember that there is an ongoing Sunni-Shiiite war with Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other. That war has gone on for 1400 years and won't end in our lifetimes. It's to the benefit of the West to keep those antagonists entangled within their own theater.
The huge error the West is making right now is in siding with the Sunnis against Iran, which gives the Saudi Arabia plenty of cash and freedom to pursue the advancement of extremist Salafism in the West.
'Way back in the early 90s, US Army scholars were writing about the danger of perpetual Muslim warfare creating a "cloud" of tens of thousands of socially detached Sunni fighters who know nothing but war.
Under "normal" circumstances, men live as farmers, shopkeepers, teachers, fathers, husbands. When they get swept into war, they still long to return to their families and their farms and shops. That's how you get soldiers to agree to peace; they want to go back to their earlier lives.
From the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to today, young men have been swept into combat without ever having known how to live as husbands or fathers or farmers or shopkeepers. They grow to maturity knowing nothing but war...they don't know how to be peaceable.
So they migrate like a cloud of poison gas from war to war, and the new wars create more young men who know nothing but war.
That is what happened in Iraq immediately after Saddam was deposed. That existing "cloud" of foreign Sunni fighters who had been fighting the Soviets migrated to Iraq to replace the Iraqi Sunnis in what was really conflict with Iraqi Shiites.
The local Sunnis (famers, shopkeepers, fathers, husbands) initially welcomed their intervention...but then very quickly realized that these foreign fighters were peace-less barbarians.
The US Army actually went against US policy at that point. The US policy was to turn those areas over to the (mostly Shiite) Iraq government forces. Instead, the US Army forged its own policy of promising the local Sunnis protection from the Shiite Iraq government in exchange for cooperation against the barbarian foreign fighters. The local Sunnis agreed, and that was the success we saw with the "surge" in Iraq. (Ultimately, that situation was unacceptable to the mostly Shiite Iraqi government.)
That "cloud" of detached Sunni fighters who know nothing but war still exists. The ISIS combatants include old fighters from Afghanistan as well as young rebels from Syria. The best bet is to let the Iranian and Iraqi Shiites whittle them down and not give Saudi Arabia and Turkey the freedom to keep ISIS fueled.
The age old Sunni/Shiite conflict is always there but that's not the reason they are attacking westerners. The balance of power is important in the middle east - the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s was actually a model of how the international community should work these conflicts. If you can't get peace make sure no side wins (via subtle support to one side or the other). Chalk one up for the elder Bush.
But sometimes they are not content to kill each other. Iran's Hezbollah and Hamas do kill Americans, and Iran itself may be getting to big for it's britches, just like Saddam did, and are destabilizing forces - assasinations here, bribes there, spy's over there. Part of what we see in the middle east is indeed a proxy war with Syria/Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states on the other. But both these groups have extreemists - really what these extremist are fighting for is the right to kill jews and the "infidels" (us), and once one side overpowers the other, that's what will happen.
So what's the difference between Sunni S.A. and Shiite Iran? Both are under some form of Sharia law but S.A. is a monarchy and the royal family loves there western secular pleasures. On the other hand Iran is an "Islamic Republic" ruled by it's clergy...and although we can guess that some of the funding from Al Queda comes from the royal S.A. family, it's not a guess with Iran - state sponsored terrorism is the modus operandi.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Constitutes a 'Win' in the War on Terror and How Do We Get There?
