How 268 Terrorist Groups Worldwide Ended, 1968–2006

chcr

chcr

Too cute for words
figure1.gif

D'oh!

Los Linkos
religiously motivated terrorist groups took longer to eliminate than other groups but rarely achieved their objectives; no religiously motivated group achieved victory during the period studied.
Click to expand...
What, never? D'oh!
But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization. Its goal is intact: to establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes. It continues to employ terrorism and has been involved in more terrorist attacks around the world in the years since September 11, 2001, than in prior years, though engaging in no successful attacks of a comparable magnitude to the attacks on New York and Washington.

Al Qa'ida's resilience should trigger a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy. Its goal of a pan-Islamic caliphate leaves little room for a negotiated political settlement with governments in the Middle East. A more effective U.S. approach would involve a two-front strategy:
* Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies.
* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all.
Click to expand...
:shrug:
 
isn't RAND just a liberal think tank? of course THEY would argue against extensive use of US forces, since they're so anti-military.
 
The problem with "policing" is you can't arrest them when they are protected and funded by a sovereign state. You have to remove the sovereignty of that state first.
 
Terrorists are not criminals to be treated by a just system. They are enemy combatants to be taken out by force. If the policing idea worked, we'd not ne having this problem now. It's failed for twenty+ years. The war is working.
 
spike said:
Once again, just making up your own reality.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's been a failure for 30+ years ever since */soutpark/* JJJJimmy */southpark*/ told the middle east that as long as it is terrorism, we won't do anything to fight back. Come on Gonz, get your facts straight!!
 
But military force has not undermined al Qa'ida. As of 2008, al Qa'ida has remained a strong and competent organization.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

2minkey said:
isn't RAND just a liberal think tank? of course THEY would argue against extensive use of US forces, since they're so anti-military.
Click to expand...

I've always heard they're a conservative think tank. It's okay though, everyone changes what the labels mean from moment to moment to support their current delusions anyway.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that Al Qaida is as strong now as it was in 2001? Do you really think that they are as effective now as they were back then? Our problem now is the schizophrenic Pakistan government who protects and aids Al Qaida while hunting them down. It would be a lot easier if they would come together and choose sides so we can have a coherent policy with them. We might have to choose for them.
 
Frodo said:
Are you seriously suggesting that Al Qaida is as strong now as it was in 2001? Do you really think that they are as effective now as they were back then? Our problem now is the schizophrenic Pakistan government who protects and aids Al Qaida while hunting them down. It would be a lot easier if they would come together and choose sides so we can have a coherent policy with them. We might have to choose for them.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's old news. You're right about Pakistan though. Like Saudi Arabia they are not very good allies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102443.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294526.stm
 
The one that really ticked me off was about a month ago when we were attacked, tracked the guys back to Waziristan, and bombed them. The Pakistan government immediately screamed that we had killed their soldiers. OH, Reeeeheeely!!! Instead of pushing the issue as to why the terrorists we killed were also their soldiers, we just kept our mouths shut. I was never much for "diplomacy". I say get it all out on the table and deal with it.
 
Frodo said:
I say get it all out on the table and deal with it.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, that's what diplomacy really is. Political expediency is what you don't like and I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, that's what passes for diplomacy these days. :shrug:
 
Frodo said:
You're right, it's been a failure for 30+ years ever since */soutpark/* JJJJimmy */southpark*/ told the middle east that as long as it is terrorism, we won't do anything to fight back.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? What did Jimmy tell the middle east?

Come on Gonz, get your facts straight!!
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top