Are we even at war at all?

[greyhound]

Seems to me that the farther we get from 9/11 without any major terrorist attacks here in the US, we are slowly drawing ourselves into two camps:

-one that says the attacks of 9/11 were a one-off, there is little or no threat here from Islamic terrorism, and we should get back to normal and stop letting our government whip us into a frenzy every time they need a bump in the polls. Combating international terrorism is the work of the UN.

- the polar opposite compares the War on Terror to be the equivalent of World War II, an epic struggle for the very existence of our country and freedom. They believe Islamic terrorists to be plotting hard against the US and feel that more attacks are inevitable. We should be taking any and all aggressive actions necessary to prevent the attacks, and especially not continuing our recent past of making sure our every move is blessed by the UN.

Now, I know most people are in the middle of the two extremes, but I think as the awful memory of 9/11 fades into the past, we are heading slowly to extreme positions. The next year and the 2004 elections should be be very interesting...

 

[Glock Glockler]

Or is it ultimately an ideological battle that manifests itself physically? If so, what is the US govt doing to defeat that ideology as opposed to defeating a group of people.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

We are not simply in a war. We are involved in a much larger cultural and ideological conflict, which may last as long, or longer than the last (the Cold War). It will most likely consist of many small, often undeclared wars and military interventions. While it is very unlikely that radical Islam can defeat our culture, the conflict is ours to lose. If we choose to simply increase domestic security, and ignore the groups and nations that seek to destroy all American power in the world whether it be political, economic, military or in the realm of popular culture, then they will win by default. The next century will be shaped by American influence, or by the lack of it. For a good read, thats extremely relevant in our current situation, may I recommend The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot.

 

[Waitone]

The war on Islamofascist terrormongers is most like the Cold War. Periods of "peace and quiet" broken by brief periods of violence.

It will not be a 4-year conflict like the WW's. It will be like a european style 30 years war. No big invasion followed by an all out drive on the home land. It will be battles and war fought all over the world. Some we know about, most we don't. Ultimately the war's success will turn on bribery, snipers, and intelligence. It is not a war of broad appeal. It is a war fomented and justified by a handfull of very dangerous people.

All of which is unfortunate since Americans was a climatic battle between the bad guy and our good guy, a la "the war is not won until we kill <insert favored boogie man>".

 

[greyhound]

Good point Waitone.

I think that's why Gulf War I was the "perfect" war from the standpoint of the normal, rational majority of the American public.

We went, we whomped the evil dictator while losing less than 150 men, turned right around and came home to victory parades.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the WOT to fade into Cold War like stature, i.e. there but not in-your-face, topic one.

On the other hand, if a nuke blows up Chicago, we may be marching into Mecca after all.

I guess success in the war is based on what DOESN'T happen, to a certain extent.

 

[Pilgrim]

It will not be a 4-year conflict like the WW's. It will be like a european style 30 years war. No big invasion followed by an all out drive on the home land. It will be battles and war fought all over the world.

If we ever come up with a workable fusion reactor, it would go a long way towards cutting off the source of funds that are funding Al-Qaida and the like.

Pilgrim

 

[longeyes]

The War started forty years ago and the Islamic Campaign is just one sub-set of the struggle. It is about Reason and Freedom and Private Property against the Hydra-headed variants of its opposites. If you want to see the war in action, you need go no further than your nearest elementary school classroom and see how American history is being taught to your kids.

This is going to a long and bitter conflict, with many major battles and many comparative lulls. I would say we would win but the real question for me is who "we" consist of. America has an increasingly fluid identity. At some point we are going to have to get clear again about what it is that sets America, and the idea of America, apart. A lot of emerging Americans want America to emulate Europe, which is rather funny in light of Europe's tumultuous past and cloudy future.

 

[ojibweindian]

Fission reactors would work, too.

 

[ojibweindian]

Given the current short attention spans and general wussdom of Americans as a whole, I see this as a fight we will eventually lose.

If, however, we collectively grow a pair...

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

This is a cultural and ideological war. We have cajoled those in the ME for years with a go-along-get-along attitude and we support you against state X and now we think you are the problem. Let us not forget that we did not start this. We played by the "rules" and they bought the fight to unarmed civilians.

There are those that would emasculate us and withdraw. At that point we lose. No longer will we be secure, unless we withdraw from being THE world power.

Entangled alliances are still being used and pursued. This is the soft underbelly of our effort. We support the gov of Pakistan while much of the hate is generated/germinated there, but right across the border, we are conducting S&D missions.

We have all but departed from Saudi Arabia, which is one of the edicts of UBL, but the CAUSE for their action just shifts to another. Now the fight is for Afghanistan and Iraq, and "Palestine," whatever that is (Tran-Jordan?).

If we were fighting a nation-state, this would be much easier. We can bring multiple forms of pressure to bear on a nation-state. These groups move from country to country with the help of the populace in each, and sometimes factions of the government.

What started as a security action in Afghanistan (root out Al Qaeda/Taliban) has evolved into the real conflict: we are being targeted by groups located in a band from Morrocco to Malaysia.

They will not hesitate to bring the conflict here. I hope we continue to take the conflict to them. We overcame the CCCP menace, and I believe that we can overcome this.

 

[Baba Louie]

What 7.62FMJ said... spot on. Fighting a concept, not a nation-state is a tiring proposition and one that can quickly lose popular momentum as long as the atrocities are committed over there as opposed to over here. Here, we just lose a few more freedoms and another degree of liberty or two.

Keep 'em busy over in their homelands, bring some level of freedom to one of the nation-states and see if we can gather some allied support within that nation is a concept that might work... while this administration is in power. All bets are off when a new administration comes to roost at 1600 Pennsylvania.

This particular enemy understands power and the use of it, whether its them doing it to us or us doing it to them. We tend to believe that War is a necessary evil to be used sparingly and even then, only when the public clamors for it (ala post 9-11 or Dec 7, 41)... the opposition uses it daily to keep in good graces with their version of Allah's will being done (whether Allah is the Emperor, a 1000 year Reich or World Brotherhood brought about by Communism). We prefer trade. Or rebuilding what we destroy in the name of capitalistic freedoms being the better way to get along. Then we can tax those enterprises to futher our expansion and control.

So, even if we're not at war, we're always looking for something resembling it to spend money on to either prevent it or fix it after the fact. Cold War, War on Crime, War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc.

And yes, the 2004 elections should be very interesting. Just keep Hillary out of it and get somebody good to oppose her Senate race in 2006, please and pray that the Republicans have somebody ready to go in 2008.

Adios

 

[Coronach]

I quote the Rules of Conduct:

1.) All topics and posts must be related to firearms or civil liberties issues.

I don't want to shut this one down, because it has obvious civil-liberty issues in it. So, lets concentrate on that aspect, rather than the international terrorism aspect. I know its impossible to ignore the latter completely, but lets please keep the main thrust of the discussion on the issue of civil liberties.

Thanks!

Coronach

 

[Lone_Gunman]

There is no way to seperate discussion of terrorism from discussion of civil liberties. The Patriot Act, which is arguably the most dramatic piece of legislation since integration, is the direct result of terrorism, and clearly has the potential to infringe greatly upon our civil rights.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Counter-point:

• "Terrorism" is being defined as "acts of war committed by individuals, rather than nation-states." Yeah, there are other definitions in use, but an attack on a military barracks by a bomber is called "terrorism" just like the slaughter of partiers at discos.
• These people we're fighting are people who are pissed off at the actions this country has taken (or the actions of other nations this country has supported). We aren't addressing why they're pissed off, and we aren't at all concerned with modifying our behavior in a way that might minimize the number of new people who join the cause of the terrorists.
• "They" don't want our "freedoms," "they" want us out of Saudi Arabia, and to stop supporting Israel. They've stated as much.
• Our government, on the other hand, seems to have some serious issues with freedom in the US. From where I sit, it seems that my own government is a greater threat to my "freedom" than anyone sitting in a cave in the middle east.
• We aren't taking the approach of "war only as last resort." We went to war with Iraq because we wanted to go to war. You can claim the incompetence of our leaders and federal bureaucracy, but the reports coming out now seem to indicate that Bush had a woody for Iraq from the beginning, and acted accordingly.
• Nothing we've done to date has minimized the risk we face from terrorism, but it's done a lot to erode the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Actions that would have a positive impact on our safety aren't being taken (think carrying guns on aircraft, instead of confiscating tweezers.)

Look, from 1990-2000 there were less than 8,000 victims of terrorism world-wide, as opposed to a little over 10 million people killed by their own governments. I'm one of those who sees the whole "war on terror" as a distraction from some frightening stuff going on domestically. I'm worried, and it's not about some middle-eastern outcasts.

I don't believe I'm the only one that feels this way.

 

[longeyes]

"Look, from 1990-2000 there were less than 8,000 victims of terrorism world-wide, as opposed to a little over 10 million people killed by their own governments. I'm one of those who sees the whole "war on terror" as a distraction from some frightening stuff going on domestically. I'm worried, and it's not about some middle-eastern outcasts.

I don't believe I'm the only one that feels this way."

Because governments tend toward tyranny doesn't mean we have to romanticize the outlaws.

Osama Bin Laden has made clear what he would like to see in the U.S.: ISLAM.

We should stop supporting Israel so the Israelis can be annihilated? No thanks.

If the Al-Qaeda have "only" killed 3,000 Americans so far for it's not for want of desire or trying. You may be less sympathetic to the "pissed-off" contingent when and if they succeed in disrupting America on a bigger scale. Why is it our job to understand them?

Would you have been arguing that fighting the Nazis and the Japanese implied a loss of our civil liberties?

The U.S. is not the problem for the Moslem world. With the trillions of dollars they've gotten from the West for oil they should have created paradise on earth by now.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Amen.. We didn't start it but we will finish it.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

7.62

We'll finish it???

You sure about that?

Islam has been intermittently at war with Christendom for a thousand years, and now all of a sudden we'll end it?

This won't end until, either:

1. All muslims are dead.
2. All Chistians and Jews are dead.
or 3. We are all dead.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

If we are going down that route, then, you are correct. I do not believe that it will be an "absolute" scenario to the death of either or all. It is a matter of defeating/demoralizing the extremists.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Because governments tend toward tyranny doesn't mean we have to romanticize the outlaws.

BinLadin is an ???, and he's less of a threat to my freedom than Ashcroft or Reno. Feel better?

Osama Bin Laden has made clear what he would like to see in the U.S.: ISLAM.

Source for that? The only time I've ever heard him address it he mentioned what I listed above -- stop supporting the Saudis and Israelis, and get US troops out of Saudi.

We should stop supporting Israel so the Israelis can be annihilated? No thanks.

That's the problem: we can't even discuss the issue. Question: would you prefer to drop support of Israel in a way that forces them to come to some sort of resolution over the Palestinian problem, or see more Americans die, further erode your right to speak, your right to go about your daily business unhindered, your right to travel without stopping to show your papers, and the right to bear arms?

It's not a black and white discussion, but it needs to be discussed. Lots of people want to keep the US in support of Israel. How much? $1,000 per person per year? $10? I can promise you, there comes a point when "we" as Americans will collectively decide not to do so. Religious republicans will feel differently (how else are they gonna see the end times? Israel has to exist!), but they should at least put forth their concerns in open debate.

"Not even gonna discuss it" isn't the way to approach this issue.

Why is it our job to understand them?

Uhmmm. It's a "war," right? Is it ever rational to enter a war with an enemy you don't even try to understand? What if it's a war that's not taking place in the physical sphere so much as in the religious and political sphere: are you even going to be able to fight without exerting some mental effort?

Would you have been arguing that fighting the Nazis and the Japanese implied a loss of our civil liberties?

If we passed prohibitions on free speach and threw our citizens in prison camps without charging them with crimes, then yes.

Question to you: do you recommend suspending the constitution because doing so makes it easier to wage war? If so, sir, then you are my enemy.

The U.S. is not the problem for the Moslem world. With the trillions of dollars they've gotten from the West for oil they should have created paradise on earth by now.

We don't have a history of supporting "them," we have a history of supporting their "betters" at the expense of "them." Question: has the middle class virtually disappeared in Saudi under the rule of the Saudi Royal Family, and has the family gotten richer and richer as part of the process? Question: are we actively involved in keeping them in power in response to growing resentment from the Saudi people (including Bin Ladin)? Question: why won't we discuss pushing the Saidis from a monarchy to a representative democracy? We can link Iraq with 9/11 and use that as justification for a regime change; why not Saudi Arabia?

_

 

[WvaBill]

What if, in the interest of preventing acts of terrorism, abuses of Patriot or unlegislated regulations cause a significant portion of US population to be stripped/denied civil rights? Are these people going to see the value of peaceful protest? Are they going to be allowed this right(they are potentielly planning terrorist acts)? It may then be a case of domestic and international terrorism.

IMHO, I do not believe these unintended consequences hve been thought out.

What would you do if asked to submit to a search of your vehicle because it fits the description of a confidential informant? If you refuse, what if you arearrested for obstructing a terrorist investigation and then your vehicle is searched? Now you are on the databases as once being held as part of a terrorist investigation.

Unlikely, yes. But when AFDC(Welfare) or Social Security were enacted, did anyone believe they would morph int income maintenance? A few, but not many. When has any government program shrunk?

Farm subsidies, AD Council, Food Stamps, Social Security, DoD, US Dept. of Ed.(oxymoron) , and the exception--Office of Civilian Marksmanship

Yes, there is a war on terror, and the collateral damage to that war may very well be our civil liberties.

 

[longeyes]

Actually, the exact dollar limit on Israel is $1,567 per year, although that number rises with the cost of living index. Above that, it's no longer cost-effective to side with the Israelis and we cut 'em loose and let Nature take its course. No doubt the Moslem world will rush in to excise the cancer that is Israel. And that fell day, sir, will be the finale for Islam As We Know It, and you don't need Revelations to know which the wind blows, and the fall-out that will go with it. I say this as a non-Israeli, non-Jew, and non-Bibliomane, just an observer of things.

Yes, the "Israel problem" can be discussed. When the "Moslem problem" is discussed. Not before.

What we need to "understand" about our enemies, once we have determined them, is how to neutralize them, temporarily or permanently. The British and French should have tried to "understand" the Nazis, I guess? And we should have tried to understand the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? If there is anything that the West is synonymous with, it is MENTAL EFFORT. American "reason" is why you can be a system administrator on a computer system that owes it existence to Western, largely American, ingenuity and technological prowess.

As for the Saudis, I do not support dictators any more than I support mobocracies or theocracies.

As for Osama, I distinctly remember a message in which he declared as a primary goal the conversion of America to Islamic principles.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

How does this thread relate to our civil rights?

If we pull in and decide not to fight this ideological war, we abdicate our leadership role in the world. Eventually we will face a world across our borders with someone elses veiw of what defines civil rights.

Yes, it often seems like that is already the case, but the fight for leadership is ongoing, and why shouldn't progress be slow, since Americans are still arguing about what those values are our selves.

Every time the government of some other nation lashes out at American influence, whether it be movies and language in France, or decadence in the Muslim sphere the real issue is the predominance of American culture, and the infiltration of American values.

Some good news...

Two recent statements, one from the Taliban, and one from Al Qaeda, suggest that both are worried about their public support.

In the first, attributed to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader lashes out at "cowards" who refuse to join his Jihad.
Afghan insurgents spar with U.S., local troops

In the second, Al Qaeda denies responsability for the recent Riyadh bombing after its murder of Arab civilians triggered public anger.
Alleged Qaeda statement denies Saudi attack

And some bad news...

Saudi handling of the situation appears unlikely to capitalize on the situation. Although the Saudis are desperately in need of an infusion of democracy, the correspondents comparison to France in 1789 should leave all of us uneasy.
Overhasty clean-up in Riyadh

 

[Orthonym]

No we're not (Constitutionally) at war,

and that's the problem. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas ( I voted for him for Pres.) tried to point out to the other members that Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 11 gives Congress the power to "...grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

Sounds like a good idea to me! Fit out some privateers (with appropriate bonds and sureties, of course) and turn them loose on the enemy. We get to shut them down AND take all of their stuff!


Hell, yeah! Let's declare a state of reprisal!

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Actually, the exact dollar limit on Israel is $1,567 per year, although that number rises with the cost of living index. Above that, it's no longer cost-effective to side with the Israelis and we cut 'em loose and let Nature take its course.

I think you missed a vital point: our treatment of/support for Israel is something that should be debated in public. We don't have that -- we have support for the Israelis that isn't questioned. And people who have strong feelings on this and related issues won't discuss it.

No doubt the Moslem world will rush in to excise the cancer that is Israel.

"Cancer" is overly strong, but you're welcome to your opinions. This is a topic that needs to be discussed, but going any further here will result in this thread being locked.

Let me just restate: we have options with regard to Israel. It's possible that we can act in a way that addresses the concerns of everyone involved, not just the Israelis that are in power at the moment. To do so, we need to understand the concerns of each side.

And that fell day, sir, will be the finale for Islam As We Know It

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I can assure you that the Islam I know is nothing like the Islam that you "know."

Yes, the "Israel problem" can be discussed. When the "Moslem problem" is discussed. Not before.

Uhhh, don't understand the quotes, but I believe I mentioned the "palestinian" problem....

Again, don't want the thread to drift too much.

The British and French should have tried to "understand" the Nazis, I guess?

Are you suggesting they didn't? No understanding of the language, or of the culture? No guess as to the mood of the people, or the industrial capacity of the nation and how it was being directed? Maybe they should have ignored the structure of the armed forces, or the names/histories/predispositions of the personalities involved. Certainly it wouldn't be important to try and understand weaknesses/strengths as perceived by the enemy, in the hope that they might be able to predict their future actions. Military advances? Nah.

And we should have tried to understand the Japanese after Pearl Harbor?

Hrmmm. More detail can be added here, but you can read above for something of an idea where I'm coming from. If you don't study your enemy, you're a fool (paraphrased Sun Tzu. Not up for digging up a quote).

If there is anything that the West is synonymous with, it is MENTAL EFFORT.

OK. Now I understand. We've been doing it so long and so well, that we need a break and shouldn't exert the effort in this instance. At least, I'm guessing that's where you're coming from.

Look, if you want to "fight terrorism," it's worth asking yourself:

1. Who are these terrorists, and where are they coming from?
2. How are they being recruited? Are their numbers increasing or decreasing at the present time? Should our actions be continued, or modified because they're ineffective?
3. What is driving new recruits into the ranks of the terrorists? Why do they feel that signing on with Bin Ladin is a rational thing to do? Why would anyone want to blow themselves up? What can we do/say/ to reduce the flow of recruits to a trickle, then cut if off completely?
4. What are their capabilities? Is it all RDX and Semtex, or are there some pilots among them? Do any of them have friends within the nuclear regulatory bureaucracy in Pakistan, and if they do then can they perform the precision work required to build a functional nuke?
5. How does the ideology of the terrorists mesh with that of nation-states that might be able to support/train/hide them? What can we do to put a wedge between these folks to reduce the support the terrorists have?
6. Who are the terrorists? Can we build a list of associations so that we can find potential terrorists, and use those associations to try and prevent future actions (ie, "prevent another 9-11")?
7. What do the terrorists want? Is it the end of democracy, or is it the right to determine their own fate without outside intervention? If it's the first, we can assume an entirely different set of attacks than if it's the second.

Minimize the importance of these questions all you want, but without them (and without the intelligence to actually modify our behavior based on the answers to these questions, the whole "war on terror" is nothing but an excuse for domestic rights infringements.

American "reason" is why you can be a system administrator on a computer system that owes it existence to Western, largely American, ingenuity and technological prowess.

I'll be happy to discuss the history of "reason," logic, and innovation, if you like. This likely isn't the place for it.

As for Osama, I distinctly remember a message in which he declared as a primary goal the conersion of America to Islamic principles.

Odds are that was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Powell. I've seen one statement attributed to Osama -- see above for the contents.

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

Answers

1. Who are these terrorists, and where are they coming from?

Males, generally in their twenties and up, from diverse backgrounds (including middle class and well to do families) stretching from Morocco to Yemen, many trained in Al Qaeda’s Afghan facilities before those facilities were destroyed or forced to relocate. Some have experience in combat in previous conflicts from Bosnia to Somalia to Afghanistan.

2. How are they being recruited? Are their numbers increasing or decreasing at the present time? Should our actions be continued, or modified because they're ineffective?

Recruiting appears to be along religious lines, using the long standing radical Islamic infrastructure of sympathetic clerics, mosques, and madrassas. If their numbers were increasing significantly, then Mullah Omar would probably not be complaining about “cowards†who fail to participate in the jihad. Its far too early in a long conflict to call our actions ineffective.

3. What is driving new recruits into the ranks of the terrorists? Why do they feel that signing on with Bin Ladin is a rational thing to do? Why would anyone want to blow themselves up? What can we do/say/ to reduce the flow of recruits to a trickle, then cut if off completely?

Again, religion, or more specifically a radical strain of Islam, blaming all the problems and injustices of the world on the United States (and the presumed Jewish Conspiracy running it). Obviously, a strong religious indoctrination, coupled with the relentless local media bias in the area make these decisions believable, though still irrational. Willingness to die in a terrorist attack is the function of careful selection, and intensive indoctrination (even then Osama Bin Laden himself boasted on tape that many of the 9/11 hijackers weren’t told about that part of their mission until the last minute). To reduce their recruiting we have to deny them success, no amount of indoctrination can hide lies and the long term failure to achieve goals (of course, folks who think we’re lying will say the same about us, but I’m willing to let history make the call on that).

4. What are their capabilities? Is it all RDX and Semtex, or are there some pilots among them? Do any of them have friends within the nuclear regulatory bureaucracy in Pakistan, and if they do then can they perform the precision work required to build a functional nuke?

The conception of the 9/11 plot suggests that they have some pilots, just to have formulated it. Obviously, if they had plenty of them they wouldn’t have had to send the hijackers to flight schools though. Published reports suggests some ties to sympathetic figures in the Pakistani nuclear bureaucracy, but the complete capability to build a nuke appears unlikely, after all the 9/11 plot took 15 months, ½ million, and lots of people and planning. Building a complete nuke would be a considerably large effort, conducted in their current reduced circumstance (hiding in the Afghanistan and the Tribal Areas of Pakistan because any place else their host government would have its own plans for the product).

5. How does the ideology of the terrorists mesh with that of nation-states that might be able to support/train/hide them? What can we do to put a wedge between these folks to reduce the support the terrorists have?

Al Qaeda’s stated goal is the restoration of one Islamic nation along the lines of an “enlightened†version of what existed prior to the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire (repeated statements and fatwas mention the end of WWI as the beginning of the western conspiracy against Islam that they want to undo) . The support given by countries with nationalistic regimes must therefore be opportunistic. We can attack the support of opportunists by making that support too costly to engage in, which we are doing.

6. Who are the terrorists? Can we build a list of associations so that we can find potential terrorists, and use those associations to try and prevent future actions (ie, "prevent another 9-11")?

The association with radical Islam appears to be the most dependable.

7. What do the terrorists want? Is it the end of democracy, or is it the right to determine their own fate without outside intervention? If it's the first, we can assume an entirely different set of attacks than if it's the second.

The restoration of one Islamic nation under their draconian laws, stretching from Morocco to Malaysia, and the end of all western influence including intellectual and cultural influences. This would obviously involve death on a scale that would warm the cockles of Stalin’s dead black heart.