A drastic shift in foreign policy. Which in turn will necessitate a drastic shift in western domestic power structure. Which is virtually impossible, short of revolution.
I don't think there is anyway to stop terrorism. As long as people people they are disenfranchised or powerless they will turn to it.
I think the notion that it can be 'stopped' is perhaps somewhat polyannaish, but reduced substantially is not outside the question. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but any agenda the seeks to meaningfully reduce terrorism would have to include atleast some of the following components: -Exercise real pressure on the Israeli government to end the occupation, facilitate the creation of an independent state, or formulate an equal citizenship model for inclusion. More broadly we can state at the very least the US has to demonstrate some willingness to take a more balanced approach with Israel. -Engage diplomatically with Iran and negotiate in practical terms that are amenable to both sides. -Encourage power-sharing and inclusion. Form broad coalitions and exert more pressure on partnering states to do more than rely on the US to fight terrorism alone. -Engage regional stakeholders who have a stake in seeing stability. For example, China, Pakistan, and Iran all have a stake in seeing Afghanistan stabilized, as a failed state will undoubtedly flow in to their territories as well. -Reduce the US military footprint globally -Reassign funding to economic development programs. Failed states become incubators for terrorism (amongst other illegal activities). -Reform terminology used in the conflict to be more specific Again, these are just initial thoughts and people are liable to disagree. To borrow a quote from Stephen Walt:
vaids13, it's sad and funny at the same time, that as the first step to reducing terrorism, you state "exercise real pressure on the Israeli government". Last I checked, it was neither the Israeli government nor the ideology behind it that led people to fly planes into buildings, blow up regular people trying to get to work in Madrid and London and just generally murder people while screaming "Allahu akbar". You also fall into the trap of perpetuating the myth that that kind of terrorism is "just a reaction". I guess you have to believe that because otherwise you would have to start questioning your own ideology - which is the ideology in whose name many atrocious murders around the world were committed.
We've been down this road many, many times. In any case, I have neither the energy nor desire to run circles with you again. I was merely responding to the OPs question with my own thoughts; as I mentioned, people are liable to disagree and I'm not surprised you did.
My tactic would be to bomb the world crank powered TV's and computers. Then hover wifi and TV drones so no one could be denied access to the modern world of p*rn and excess.
So you are unable to respond to my point that you name "exercising pressure on Israel" as the first point to combat terrorism, when, at best, said terrorism is a partial reaction to Israel's policies (not really, but in your world). Thanks, noted. Doing what you did speaks volumes about your view of the world. "Israel is the devil and the root cause of all evil and any Islamist terrorism is merely a reaction, so the first thing I will say when it comes to how to fight terrorism is to exercise pressure on Israel". You are blinded by your fanatical belief in your ideology, and the propaganda surrounding it.
If the Jews didn't exist for Muslims to blame for their own failings, the Muslims would have to invent them.
Although this is obviously difficult for you to understand, there is clearly no contradiction here. One definitely still needs to fight the underlying ideologies, be they Nazism, dictatorial and brutal communism or Islamism. What my comment meant is that they all need to be fought - and that one should not feel closer to one or the other because they would be categorized as "left" or "right" and one might feel closer to one or the other because of that. Just like you should understand that you should fight Islamism rather than trying to make excuses for it and trying to argue in favor of these extremist Islamists not being fought. Just because you are a Muslim does not mean you should not fight the ruthless ideology of Islamism and its manifestations just as much as Nazism. That is what you (and many other Muslims) do not understand. You feel ideologically close to these people, and you act like it (trying to blame everything on America, trying to argue in favor of letting these people operate freely, etc.)
So I guess that's a big NO on the " please stop the drone strikes". If the troops are leaving "in earnest" at the end of the year, then it should be quite easy to reach a deal to stop these drone strikes over time at least, right? But it seems as though the withdrawal of troops and the withdrawal of war/invasion are completely separate things, thanks to awesome drone technology.
I understand you would like to see your ideological brothers in arms get away with their terror preparations, but thumbs up to taking them out in their terror camps with drones!
A lot of good suggestions so far but to throw in my two cents. Terrorism in some ways needs to be treated almost like a cancer diagnosis. In most cases cancers treatments aren't just one treatment but a variety of treatments and to address terrorism it has to be a multi-pronged approach. The suggestions about relying on more human intelligence, following the money and reforming US policy are all good ones but just to add another thing we should look at every conflict less as one single war on terror but consider the individual issues. When people talk about a global war it really is a series of several smaller conflicts with different motivations. For example the reasons why Muslims are fighting in Chechnya isn't the same reason that Muslims are fighting in Thailand. Islam just becomes a convenient way for them to try to tie their struggle into a broader struggle to gain support. Its really not much different than how in the '70's and 80's groups like the PLO, IRA and Sendero Luminosa all called themselves Marxists. By considering on individual conflicts might lead to more targeted solutions rather than a one size fits all solution. Unfortunately that's not going to be easy as both Al Qaeda and many of those who oppose them are intent on making this an international conflict and a clash of civilizations.
Just to add on my post above this is why making this a war against Islam and Islamaphobia actually makes it harder to fight Islamic terrorism than it helps. For example, a typical Malaysian Muslim is culturally very different than a typical Saudi Muslim. The problem though is that a Malay Muslim reads about people in America angry about the building of mosque in the US or burning Qu'rans they interpret that America is actually at war with Islam as a whole rather than what is really a very very small subset of Muslims. That just ends up becoming self-fulfilling as while a Malay Muslim might not have any interest in Wahabism they will see the extremists as the ones who are defending Islam against an existential threat.
