is there a better approach to combatting terror?

NJlonghorn

NJlonghorn

2,500+ Posts
Up to about 2010, I was fully behind the military-based response to terrorism. I liked (and still like) the idea of bringing terrorists to justice. And killing them feels like just the right amount of justice.

More recently, I have begun to wonder if we are causing more harm that good. For each terrorist we kill, we also kill a handful of non-terrorists. For each non-terrorist we kill, we inspire a handful of non-terrorists to become terrorists. Thus, for each terrorist we kill, we give birth to a handful-squared of other terrorists. I know this analysis is vastly oversimplified, but I do think that raining bombs on the Middle East has inspired countless otherwise peaceful people to become extremists.

I'm far from ready to give up on killing terrorists. I remain convinced that it is the fairest, most rational approach to the problem. But I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the results we are getting, and I don't think we will get better results by ramping our efforts up. If anything, I fear that things will get worse.

The thing is, I don't know that there is a better approach.
 
Ruthless dictators in the Middle East are my preferred method. It's far from perfect and there are still terrorists in those countries but it seems to be less. It also doesn't solve the problem of home grown terrorists but it's not like we were dropping bombs on France anyway.
 
Embargo? Isolate them from the world even further? Nuke some major Islamic cities wiping out huge populations with the threat of more to come. Deport any citizens in the US from whatever countries you want to list as Muslim. I'm not sure anyone has the answer, and if they did they wouldn't have the stomach to carry it out.
 
True not all nations are ready for democracy but 2 of the 3 Dictators listed by Husker were taken down when BO was POTUS and neocons were not in power.
 
Obviously none of us are counter-terrorism experts, so we're all talking out our asses to a point. However, I speculate that you need a multi-faceted approach to fighting terrorism. I think the military is effective for destroying large, organized, well-armed groups of terrorists such as ISIS or nations where the state itself is a major advocate for terrorism. (However, like any other war, you can't half-*** it and expect to win.)

When we go to the trouble and expense of using the military, we need to go all the way. Killing the bad guys is part of it, but we need to stop the propaganda that's giving rise to the movement in the first place. That means that advocating radical Islam and terrorism needs to be criminalized in those areas, and the Islamic clerics who advocate it need to be killed. The actual ideology needs to be destroyed. If I walk around in Germany giving the Heil Hitler greeting, wearing a SS uniform, display a swastika flag on my home, or blast the Horst Wessel song out loud, I'll be charged with a crime. It doesn't matter if I'm actually threatening anyone or even if I actually believe in national socialism That's because the Allies (and now the Germans themselves) want Nazism dead, so they make it very difficult to advocate it in public. Same thing should happen in Islamic areas occupied by the US military.

Having said that, most of the time the military isn't the answer. If some thug will keep the nutcases in line, then be pro-thug. Mubarek, Hussein, and Qaddafi weren't Boys Scouts by any means, but they recognized Islamic fundamentalists as threats to their power and generally knew how to keep them down. Furthermore, most of them have no soul and can be bought and relatively cheaply. Just buy them and covertly support them when they run into trouble.

Preventing domestic terrorism is tougher, because it's difficult to legally monitor citizens and their activities without violating the Constitution. Accordingly, we need to stop being stupid with our immigration policies just to be politically correct and to feed corporate greed. Quit letting large numbers of people from Islamic nations emigrate just so Texas Instruments and Google can deflate the cost of hiring engineers.
 
Well said Deez. My post was mostly tongue in cheek, but immigration is a serious matter with regard to Islamic countries. Stop allowing them into the US. I'm in agreement with the killing of those religious leaders supporting the terrorist acts, or not speaking out against them, but who is going to kill them? Someone will have to step up and I don't see the US willing to do that.
 
MrD?"
Taking out the dictators was consistent with neocon principles"??

so only Neocons want dictators taken out?
I did not know that.
rolleyes.gif
 
"Consistent with" doesn't mean they are the only ones that want that. Hell, the Islamic militants wanted these guys tossed too and they are pretty far from American neo-cons.
 
Ooooaky Mr D

so when Murbarak and Quaddifi were taken out at a time when neocons were not in control in US, Obama was does that mean Obama and the leftists failed "to consider the character and culture of the people given such democracy and freedom.
 
I think Mr. Deez is referring to the Project for a New American Century:The Link

They had stated goals of projecting American power around the world to support Democracy and yes force it where necessary. This think tank was founded in '97 and was a who's who of the Bush Administration.

They were prescient in that by tipping the Iraq domino they set in motion what would eventually become the Arab Spring. What they and later the Obama admin didn't anticipate was the ability by the local power players to fill the void and they really are only interested in power. Oh...the fundamentalists did a good job on seizing power in the vacuum too.

If you're the Obama Admin what do you do though? Millions were sitting in Tafir Square trying to oust Mubarak. Do you back him going against decades long public stances of claiming to support democracy or do you ride the wave and try to influence the outcome of the next leadership? Libya is the only area that we leveraged military to take down the leader and that isn't working out well for us either.

I really believe these various despots were the only people holding that region together. The reason they all ruled with iron fists is because they knew the alternative, show weakness and get challenged. Individually they were all very bad men but they offered stability for decades and were for the most part non-religious. They kept the fundamentalism at bay because it was a threat to their power too.
 
Husker

THIS is pretty insightful and now that you mention it very correct.
"They kept the fundamentalism at bay because it was a threat to their power too."

so in the end which is better for most of the people in a nation with a dictator as described?
 
For the people of a nation, it's typically better to oust the dictator, thogh not necessarily if it's replaced by a repressive theocracy. What's better for us, does not necessarily follow what's best for the people of a country.

There's a really good book on this called "The Dictator's Handbook." that provides a highly readable academic discussion of government.
 
? MrD
You are the one who said neocons' policy didn't take into consideration a nations ability to handle democracy even though 2 of the 3 dictators mentioned that were ousted happened while BO was in office.
I doubt there are many who think BO has any neocon leanings. Rather the point might be that BO did or let happen what he and his advisors thought was a solution and that it isn't just neocons who think getting rid of a oppressive dictator is a good thing.
 
Horn6721,

You're still trying to make this about politicians. I'm talking about the actual acts. I don't care who does them. I don't care whether anyone would call Obama a neocon. Supporting the overthrowing of dictators in hopes of giving a bunch of crazy people freedom and democracy and having it turn out well is a neocon thing to do.

Do bear on mind that neocons aren't necessarily conservatives. Most of the older ones were old liberal Democrats back in the '70s. Despite the rhetoric, they still have significant clout in the Democratic Party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top