Why war may not be effective...

[gettinbranded]

Bin Laden has strategic reasons to believe in terrorism, too. The Muslim victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan showed him that superpowers are not so superpowerful. And the ignominious American withdrawal from Somalia—following a Bin Laden connected attack—convinced him that the United States is morally weak. The U.S. soldier is "a paper tiger" who crumples after "a few blows."

It is a mistake to assume that killing Bin Laden means killing his movement. It's true that Bin Laden is an iconic leader who inspires his followers and millions of sympathizers in the Muslim world. But eliminating Bin Laden would do nothing to decrease the intensity of the other militant Islamists. The Afghan war created a cadre of warriors and belligerent clerics who are constantly recruiting. Bin Laden has a core of highly trained aides ready to continue his work. His trainees are scattered in two dozen countries. It is hard to imagine how the United States could neutralize all of them. And attacks on Bin Laden have only increased his popularity: Killing him would likely rally many more Muslims to his cause.



http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/01-09-13/Assessment.asp

[ROXRAN]

You're right!....that's why we must kill all the ****ers! DATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDATDAT!!!!!

KILL, KILL, DIE!, DIE! KILL ALL OF THEM!!! ....!

[outlaw]

if we do nothing they'll just keep trying this crap anyway. it's like prison. either you fight back or you become someone's bitch.

[DaDakota]

You have to kill them, their money source, and anywhere that harbours them.

They will then have no cash, no place to plan, and no life.

Game over.

DaDakota

[Dr of Dunk]

Such a simple response DaDakota. Our leaders must be stupid for not attempting any of these things.

[DaDakota]

D.O.D.

I think they did not have the will to do all of those things. I think that they made half hearted attempts.

The days of doing those things without having blood on our hands are over.

I wish this was not the case, but I don't belive before this event we could have gotten the necessary support from around the world to properly combat terrorism, I think we can get it now.

Hopefully, our country will have the courage to see it ALL the way through.

Is that a better answer for you?

DaDakota

[glynch]

Dakota said: about George Bush Jr and Sr and Bill Clinton and recent American leaders: " I think they did not have the will to do all of those things. I think that they made half hearted attempts.

The days of doing those things without having blood on our hands are over. "

Sort of reminds me of what the El Salvadoran death squad leaders say about their elected officials . Or what Bin Laden says about Yaser Arafat.

[DaDakota]

Well Glynch,

What do you in your infinite criticism suggest.

Be man enough to outline your thoughts to this attack.

I anxiously await your proposal to this situation.

Glynch, you have the floor....

DaDakota

[glynch]

What to do?

1)Sit back and take a deep breath and think. Do some push ups or jog. Stop the insane rhetoric.

2) Thoughless men of action can cause great problems. Don't question the patriotism immediately of anyone who advocates caution or a different way than you. Realize that combatting terrorism by force alone is not effective.

3)Find out who did this.

4) Basically develop a plan to bring them to justice in a way that won't make them martyrs or win further converts for the terrorist cause. This is tactically wise.

5) Get international support as Bush is doing.

6) Try if necessary for months to get Bin Lauden, if he is the culprit extradited for trial. Failing this go and arrest him with the minimum force necessary. Note the loss of American and other life should be given priority not Bush's timetable for the midterm or other elections,as is often done.

8) Put the terrorists on trial at the Hague along with Milosevic. It is more appropriate to treat them as war criminals. It doesn't glorify them.

7) Withdraw all US troops from Saudi which insults many religious Arabs. Stop oppressing Arabs for cheap oil.

8) Stop killing children in Iraq and "Wagging the Dog" bombing. Declare victory and leave.

9) Start an emergency plan for energy independence with solar and conseration etc. to replace any oil lost. This needs to be done even if Cheney and Bush's portoflio goes down. Once the demand for oil goes down the Arabs will have to come to us to a certain extent. You can't eat or drink oil.

10) Take back Bush's tax cut to the rich or start a lot of deficit spending and begin a Marshal plan to develop those parts of the Middle East that act responsibly. Increased wealth makes people more moderate.

11) Stop the irrational backing of Israel and let them know that if they want to continually fight their neighbors over a few square miles of Jerusalem they have to do it on their dime.

12) Start acting more responsible at the United Nations and blocking conferences on racism, land mines, global warming. etc. Quit trying to bully the World and insist that we have to have our way or we just won't play. Pay all our UN dues.

13)Cease all development of the Star Wars boondoggle that bullies the rest of the world and makes us feel like we dont have to negotiate diferences.

In conclusion: bring the criminals to justice with at least some surprising compassion, seek international support, be good neighbors in the world instead of international bullies who generate hatred. Accep that the Arabs have many valid complaints and address them.

[DaDakota]

Ok, First I want to congratulate you on stepping up with a plan...well done...now if you don't mind, I will go about addressing it..inside your post...with #### preceding my rebuttals.

Originally posted by glynch
What to do?

1)Sit back and take a deep breath and think. Do some push ups or jog. Stop the insane rhetoric.

##### Agreed, no one is saying attack without knowing who did this horrid deed.

2) Thoughless men of action can cause great problems. Don't question the patriotism immediately of anyone who advocates caution or a different way than you. Realize that combatting terrorism by force alone is not effective.

#####Agreed again, wow....who knew?

3)Find out who did this.

##### Yes.

4) Basically develop a plan to bring them to justice in a way that won't make them martyrs or win further converts for the terrorist cause. This is tactically wise.

###### I am glad you find your suggestion totally wise. :) Now, I do agree, but not sure how you propose doing it.

5) Get international support as Bush is doing.

##### YEs

6) Try if necessary for months to get Bin Lauden, if he is the culprit extradited for trial. Failing this go and arrest him with the minimum force necessary. Note the loss of American and other life should be given priority not Bush's timetable for the midterm or other elections,as is often done.

##### No, we don't have time, we have to take a last straw approach, give Afghanastan 48 hours..no more...

8) Put the terrorists on trial at the Hague along with Milosevic. It is more appropriate to treat them as war criminals. It doesn't glorify them.

#####I think you just draw it out further, Bin Laden has already been found guilty, it is time to execute the sentence

7) Withdraw all US troops from Saudi which insults many religious Arabs. Stop oppressing Arabs for cheap oil.

###### They have not asked us to leave, why should we, this we can not do, as it is only allowing terrorism to win.

8) Stop killing children in Iraq and "Wagging the Dog" bombing. Declare victory and leave.

##### Please, we are not killing children in Iraq, we should go in there and eliminate the regime, get Saddam out of there now.

9) Start an emergency plan for energy independence with solar and conseration etc. to replace any oil lost. This needs to be done even if Cheney and Bush's portoflio goes down. Once the demand for oil goes down the Arabs will have to come to us to a certain extent. You can't eat or drink oil.

##### Not bad at all.

10) Take back Bush's tax cut to the rich or start a lot of deficit spending and begin a Marshal plan to develop those parts of the Middle East that act responsibly. Increased wealth makes people more moderate.

#######We can do this without taking back the tax cut. How about cutting back on entitlements instead?

11) Stop the irrational backing of Israel and let them know that if they want to continually fight their neighbors over a few square miles of Jerusalem they have to do it on their dime.

##### We back Israel because they are our allies, I do agree we tell them both to stop it now. Maybe we fund the Gaza strip rebuilding?

12) Start acting more responsible at the United Nations and blocking conferences on racism, land mines, global warming. etc. Quit trying to bully the World and insist that we have to have our way or we just won't play. Pay all our UN dues.

###### This has to go both ways, and we can not allow the UN to make policy for this country. It is a place of discussion, and is not a government.

13)Cease all development of the Star Wars boondoggle that bullies the rest of the world and makes us feel like we dont have to negotiate diferences.

##### Again, the US has the right to protect itself, why stop funding for a missile defense fund, we may need it some day.

In conclusion: bring the criminals to justice with at least some surprising compassion, seek international support, be good neighbors in the world instead of international bullies who generate hatred. Accep that the Arabs have many valid complaints and address them.

##### They may have valid complaints but you don't get people to the bargaining table by bombing their innocent civilians. The Arabs may have some serious issues, but I think they need to get their own house in order before they come telling us what to do.



See we are not that far off, we just differ on a few points, although they are major differences.

In conclusion, I applaud your well thought out response, and can appreciate your stand, even if I don't agree with all of it.

DaDakota

[glynch]

Dakota, give me one good reason why it has to be done in 48 hrs?

What if it costs more US lives to do so?

What if it costs more Afghani or other lives.

Why are you against a trial?

[haven]

Dakota, give me one good reason why it has to be done in 48 hrs?


We may or may not need to get bin Laden immediately... I'm not sure.

But the extant terrorists in the US need to be found immediately. America has withstood one attack well... but if new devastation occurs, I fear the result. People might lose faith in the ability of our government to protect them. Panic would be horrible, right now.

[RichRocket]

One argument for the swift response is that they don't understand it and won't be able to better prepare for it.

As terrorists they choose the time, the method, and the place for their horrific actions-- knowing that confusion and befuddlement will reign. On top, in particular, the US has not had the political will to strike back (as in root out) at them. Time goes on and they gain momentum in the form of money, arms, technology, and recruits. Look what 8 years have brought us to.

These guys are a cancer on the world; taking down America, The Great Satan, is their goal. Do we cut them ALL out or just a few "cells?"

[treeman]

The only argument for the swift response is immediate gratification for us. I wanted blood at first, and made some rather stupid posts that reflected my emotions and nothing else. But now I see the light...;)

Think of it this way (the correct way) - the longer it takes to initiate hostilities, the more massive the response. It doesn't take much time to move a single AF Wing, a single brigade of the 82nd, the 2nd ACR, etc... But it does take time to move ALL of the 82nd, the 2nd ACR, and several ACC Wings. And those MPS (maritime prepositioned ships) carrying a full division's worth of armor at Diego Garcia take a little time to move to any given target.

I am willing to wait a little while for the blood that will come, especially if I know that it will pour in volumes, and not at a trickle.

[ArtVandolet]

After the action Tuesday, bin Laden went into hiding, the Afgan gov't took off. I think we will have to wait a little to mount a complete attack and the longer we wait the more these roaches will come back out. The Afgan govt say's if we step foot in their country more US attacks are coming. So as long as they hide this guy and his armies and make these threats there are only 2 solutions:

1) Become a radical muslem country.

2) Exterminate them all - we do have the power.

[hitman21]

Would you rather just sit around and wait for it to happen again gettinbranded? :rolleyes:

[ROCKSS]

IMHO the longer we wait to launch a major attack againist the enemy the longer they have to hide and disassemble. If we have sufficent evidence as to who did this, we should strike now.

[glynch]

Treeman, I agree the only reason for a response in 48 hris immediate gratification.

[DaDakota]

No, No, No,

Give them 48 hours to hand him over, if they don't then tell them we will respond.

That does not mean we respond at that time. Just that we have given them a chance to avert a war and prove to us that they are on the side of a civilized world.

If they don't turn him over, or can prove that they can NOT turn him over, then tell them we expect their support as we go into their country to take him out.

DaDakota

[Hey Now!]

Originally posted by haven
But the extant terrorists in the US need to be found immediately. America has withstood one attack well... but if new devastation occurs, I fear the result. People might lose faith in the ability of our government to protect them. Panic would be horrible, right now.

agreed. those who advocate immediate response and a call to arms are misinformed.

this will be a war unlike any other. these terrorists are not tangible the way the japanese army was, for instance. they have no definitive home base, no military installations, no large congregation of forces. there aren't strategic areas we can hit that will impact their actions. they're not mobilizing forces or invading foreign lands.

when bush says they move back into the shadows, he means literally. they're ghosts.

snatching bin laden (much easier said than done), or bombing one of the lands that might have harbored these men, could very likely lead to war being waged on our shores. these cells of theirs are everywhere and you better believe that includes a large presence in our country. to think otherwise is the height of naivety.

they're a covert, widespread group of fanaticals, well-trained, highly motivated, smart, and very, very patient, and apparently, beneath our radar. we have no idea what kind of resources they have, money and otherwise, and any definitive attack from us could lead to more of what we saw on tuesday -- don't make the mistake of thinking they're not watching cnn. don't think they're not living next door to you. don't think they won't retaliate. and if we're focusing our attention and our money on fighting a foreign war... the results here could be devastating, and dwarf the events of the past week. believe it, the threat is real.

the war we wage will likely not involve military action in the traditional sense. we'll step up our efforts locally to try and find and disband as many of these cells here in our country as possible, using information gleaned from those already in custody and hopefully a beefed-up human intelligence sector. we'll likely search for, and freeze bin laden's finances, which could greatly impact their ability to do the things they've always been capable of doing. and we'll identify, and step up surveillance of those assumed to be in a position of power among these many groups, and take as many as possible into custody. that will likely be the war we fight. when we've done those things, then we can turn our attention to nations or states that might be able to or have financed terrorist activities. we impose economic sanctions on them, we cut off their trade, we squeeze them financially.

dadakota, we can't win a war in afghanistan. there's nothing there to bomb, it's too remote to stage a ground war, and it's too much of a home field advantage for afghan rebels, who are unconventional and dangerous fighters. we can threaten them all we want, but they know this. they won't turn bin laden over, and they will not cooperate.

this will be a covert war, fought over the phone, in back alleys, on the QT and eventually, in the courtrooms. to do otherwise would awaken a sleeping giant. and we have no idea of knowing how well-armed and prepared said giant is. conceivably, they could have nuclear weapons in the states. swift, military action would not be prudent.

[4chuckie]

Ric-
Afganistan is holding onto and protecting a known terrorist. They have 1 choice stop protecting and funding terrorists or start a plan to rebuild their country. Maybe compared to the US they don't have much to destroy but once their ar no jobs, schools and houses left, and no allies left the people of Afganistan will understand it is the governments and terrorists fault. At the least they will kick Lauden out.

Yes you are right it willb e a tough battle against terrorists, but if you destroy their bases and homes, cut off their funding, kill their leaders, turn their neighbors and friends against them their is nothing for them to do.

If the global community sets out to destroy terrorism then the manpower and knowledge we will have will destroy them. THey may be hard to find but if they have absolutely no friends left (knowing they will be killed if they help them) then thjey are left to fight a battle with less money, less weapons, less alliances to protect them.

So yes it will be a tough battle and there will be alot of collateral damage, but these countries that support terrorism will be brought to their knees. Same thing to the individuals who support these terrorists. They will be torn from their homes and stand to face the global army vs terrorism.

You are also right about being alot of Covert operations, but we will find out who is involved and they will be taken care of.

[Hey Now!]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
Afganistan is holding onto and protecting a known terrorist. They have 1 choice stop protecting and funding terrorists or start a plan to rebuild their country. Maybe compared to the US they don't have much to destroy but once their ar no jobs, schools and houses left, and no allies left the people of Afganistan will understand it is the governments and terrorists fault. At the least they will kick Lauden out.

let me ask a practical question: how do you go about attacking afghanistan? we have few allies in that area, we have nowhere to mobolize troop and/or air strikes -- it's a desolate, remaote country.

powell has acted quickly to try and secure pakitstan's support, and that could possibly serve as a home base, but attacking afghnaistan is risky, and snatching bin laden will prove difficult. after all, he's eluded capture for close to a decade. he has the money to flee anywhere in the world, and a band of brothers to help his flight.

Originally posted by 4chuckie
Yes you are right it willb e a tough battle against terrorists, but if you destroy their bases and homes, cut off their funding, kill their leaders, turn their neighbors and friends against them their is nothing for them to do.

which is when they're the most dangerous. bin laden is not the queen bee -- his hive doesn't die if he does. in fact, one could argue killing him would only incite the hive.

you have to understand: their hatred is rooted in their religious beliefs. bin laden funds them, serves as the leader and focal point, but these cells act indepedently -- they do not need his approval if their acts are designed to do harm upon the west.

the depth of this threat is staggering, and not at all cut and dried. there really is no simple response...

[DaDakota]

Ric,

There certainly is no simple response...did you read Treeman's excellent post on what he believes will happen? If not here it is.

______________________

I have been studying the terrorism for over 5 years and am pretty "up" on
it, and I have written two separate papers on the subject that I know were
passed on to defense officials via an organization that was contracted to
study the problem in 1999.

Before I write an assessment here I must say that while I've been predicting
this type of attack for several years, I am still absolutely shocked to see
it happen. I had thought it would be a biological attack, not a conventional
attack, that would kill this many people. But that is a nuance. I am still
absolutely shocked, even though I knew that something like this would
happen.

I posted these assessments on another message board, so I'll just repost it
here:

I know that we Americans are pis*ed off right now, but I just hope that we
will have the fortitude to stay focused and motivated throughout the
"sustained campaign" effort. I for one will have no problem with that, but I
have concerns that many other Americans will be able to do it.

I don't think that many Americans really understand what's coming.

Yes, we are going to take Bin Laden out. Yes, we are going to attack
Afghanistan, likely actually invade it with the help of the Russians. Most
Americans understand that and support it. But it is not going to stop there.

Iraq is going to be reinvaded. We know for a fact that Saddam has again been
stockpiling anthrax - and where do you think it's intended to end up. I've
been saying we have to reinvade for years, and now it seems that everyone
else might finally be in the mood to go along with that. But it won't stop
there either.

Libya has built a chemical weapons facility that is absolutely impervious to
conventional air attacks. Gadafhi is reportedly scared s*itless now, so he
might cooperate and dismantle it, but if he doesn't then we WILL destroy it.
There are only two ways to do this: a ground raid/invasion, or a "spiked"
nuclear weapon (Perry confirmed this weapon's existence several years ago).
That facility WILL be destroyed, one way or another. But it won't stop
there.

Iran is a known terrorist supporter, and has at least 3 terrorist training
bases. It also supports Hizbollah in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
Those training bases will be wiped out. If the Iranian govt doesn't do it,
then we will. They will be told as such. If they get in the way, then they
will be regarded as hostile and dealt with accordingly.

Syria is another terrorism supporter, also with numerous training bases. The
same situation as with Iran. The Sudan is also in this same boat - it has
bases, and they will be destroyed whether the Sudanese govt cooperates or
not. North Korea as well. Yemen as well. Algeria as well.

Even our allies in ther SW Asia and Africa - Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Jordan,
Egypt, Pakistan - will feel a tremendous amount of pressure to crack down on
terrorism, and if they do not fully cooperate, then they are in trouble as
well.

In short, everyone will probably be given an opportunity to renounce (and
take concrete action against) terrorism and jump on our boat.

For example, if Iran agrees and starts dismantling those camps and arresting
everyone who had anything to do with them or Hizbollah, then they will be
safe, but if they don't then they will be put on our target list and will be
dealt with in the harshest terms. If these countries fail to cooperate then
they will be attacked.

Needless to say, Al Queda, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, PLO, Fatah, Hizbollah,
Hamas, and the like - all of the known terrorist organizations - are dead
meat. We're going after all of them, not just Bin Laden and Al Queda.

I hope America is ready for one hell of a war.
----------

Every nation will have to be dealt with on an individual basis, and only
nations who actually aid the terrorists will be attacked. No state is aiding
the IRA - no, Ireland is not helping them. We are going to help the Brits
take them out now, where we used to pretty much turn a blind eye towards
them. Also, the Orange Order might be in trouble, too... But that's just one
example.

Also, I suspect that many - if not most or all - of the nations I mentioned
will end up cooperating with us. The Taliban and Iraq will not cooperate, so
I'd expect to see them be erased in due time. Most everyone else is a little
scared now, so I would suspect they will start dismantling their camps and
arresting people as soon as we tell them to. Just IMHO, that is.
----------

Now I'm going to understate the situation a little when I say this... But in
this conflict every state will be given an opportunity to side with us, and
if they want to, fine, but if they don't then they will be in trouble. That
is the most simplistic way I can put it.

Also, there's been talk about a declaration of war, but what most people
don't understand is that in such a declaration it is not necessary to
specifically name individual targets, ie. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The actual
wording will probably be something along the lines of declaring war on
"terrorists everywhere who threaten the security and freedom of the world,
as well as those who support them". It will be purposefully vague, because
what we don't want to do in the coming fight is constrain ourselves
regarding whatever actions we might have to take. We want to retain the
flexibility to do whatever needs to be done.

Now, I don't want anyone to think that we're going to be declaring war on
multiple countries - we are not going to do that. We are going to look at
groups all over the globe on a case-by-case basis, and make a judgment when
we get there. Some will be attacked, while some will not. It will be a
selective process.

I would suspect that the insurgents in Afghanistan, for example, will not be
attacked, since they don't threaten the "security and freedom" of the
world...
----------

I hinted on this earlier, but now I'd like to elaborate: the Russians are
about to become our best friends.

There's been alot made of the fact that we don't have alot of humint on the
ground (in Afghanistan). Make no mistake that when we retaliate (it's not an
"if" question) that there will be ground forces involved. It's tempting to
say that we can just put in some Special Forces, do the job, and leave, but
that is unrealistic. It may take several weeks or even months to find Bin
Laden and annihilate the entire Afghani terrorism-support network that is in
place. And it might take several years to break the whole thing up. We might
need help.

The Russians have a wealth of information about their command structure,
hiding places, materials caches, caves, etc, and also happen to have more
spies in the area than we do. They've also got thousands of Speznaz who were
wounded there and/or have lost buddies there and would really like to get an
opportunity to take some revenge. We can even help them to pay their troops,
many of which stopped recieving paychecks a long time ago...

Do not be surprised if you see more than the Russians' just getting out of
the way in what is about to happen. Try not to be shocked when you see
Russian and American infantry actually covering each others' backs in a
massive ground war. It's happened before.

This is World War 3, and the Russians are going to be our best allies. And I
am not overstating this

__________________________


I actually think he is pretty much right on the nose with what we are going to do.

DaDakota

[4chuckie]

DaDakota-
Thank you for that great post from Treeman.

Ric-
Pakistan will let us use their airbases, i have no question about it. Our initial attacks, like our recent attacks will be massive air attacks to disable anything that could be used against us. That will let everyone know how serious we are. Pakistan will let us march right thru to get to Afganistan.

Also Bin Laden has the money and the wisdom. No his organization doesn't necessarily die with him, but if we freeze his financial accounts, scare off all of his friends who don't wan to die, eventuially kill the snake, then his followers can come and fight us with sticks and rocks or whatever weapons they can find. But our attacks will weaken their will and without money they will run out of weapons and run out of their mobility (no money means ythey can't be mobile in vehicles). With no contacts they will have no way to get anything.
Once the war starts noone will want the terrorists in their country. Not only will they be fighting the great army but also their neighbors who are trying to maintain their own safety.
I don't expect their religious beliefs to change, but they had either be able to lie low, and pray noone who gets caught mentions their name, or they will die fighting. Even if they remain quiet they will not be able to be very organized. If they are suspected of terrorism they will be even more closely watched if they associate with other known or potential terrorists.
IMO- No organization, no moeny, no support, no friends, no where to stay is not an army but rather people trying to survive in the new world where they know in their hearts they may someday be caught.

[Hey Now!]

Originally posted by DaDakota
I actually think he is pretty much right on the nose with what we are going to do.

interesting indeed -- thanks for posting it. it seems to fall between your preferred advocacy and mine -- it's not an all out assault, it's not definitive, and we take measure to get people in line first before blindly attacking. i would advocate economic sanctions first, before attacking if they do not comply, but...

one small thing, however -- i disagree russia will be a help to us in afghanistan. in fact, russia was obliterated in afghanistan in the late 70's/early 80's and we aided the afghans' cause, ironically, by recruiting, funding and training bin laden. russia was at a severe disadvantge on the afghan land, and paid dearly for their inexperience.

granted, they have more experience with the terrain than we do, but afghanistan scares me -- it scares me because it alsmost certainly calls for a ground attack. there's nothing to hit there in an air strike -- no WTC, so to speak, to deaden their resolve.

the other aspect to his post that bothers me is the concentrated effort abroad -- again, i think that makes us vulnerable here to whatever factions might be among us already.

seeing the diabolical nature of their attack tuesday, would it shock you to learn their ultimate plan is to draw our attention abroad to make ourselves more vulnerable stateside?

scary...