an alternative to the war

[Universe Prince]

What alternative [to the Iraq war as a means of combating Al-Qaeda/terrorist] do you offer Prince?

Yes, I've been away for a while, but I did not forget about this question, and I want to answer it.

First, I'd like to say that I do not agree with the notion that one must offer an alternative solution if one criticizes a thing. If a person doesn't like something, his opinion is not less valid if he doesn't have a alternative to suggest. One does not have to know how to fix something to recognize that it's broken.

But I do have some ideas. And some of them have been stated here before. Pull out of Iraq. Bring our troops home and stop trying to interfere in the affairs of other countries when they pose no threat to us. Get out of the way of trade and let the cooperation of the marketplace do what it does better than any peace plan, bring people together and make them co-dependent. As has been pointed out by others (maybe not here, but I'm not the only one suggesting this) the way to improve the situation is to engage the Middle East not in warfare but in trade and modernization, and to encourage the concepts of individual liberty that are already starting to take root there.

Oh, but what about the terrorists, you say. Surely they will not be swayed by trade and will reject Western ideas of individual liberty. Unfortunately, that is probably true. They will not be persuaded to stop using terrorism—though bringing all our troops home and an end to meddling foreign policy would go along way towards removing some of their excuses for terrorism. But what about those who will not be persuaded to leave us alone? This is why we should not have a "war on terrorism". What? Give up the war on terrorism? Yes, but let me explain.

A war on terrorism is a stupid idea. For one thing, terrorism is not a country or a group of people we can kill or otherwise beat into submission. For another, we are not willing to give up terrorizing people when we feel like it so we have no grounds to demand others do so. Oh yes, I know, but we don't target innocent civilians, et cetera. That doesn't mean we don't use fear and try to inspire fear. Isn't that the whole point of going after the terrorists in the first place, to let them know that attacking us will have dire consequences for them? Isn't that why people insist we cannot take the nuclear option off the table when talking to countries like Iran and North Korea? Of course it is. Oh, but that's not terrorism, you say. Perhaps not in the manner we normally think of terrorism, but it is about the intent to make others fear us and to use that fear to manipulate them to ends we desire, and if that is not terrorism, it is terrorism's twin sibling. Either way, we should stop trying to deny this and use it to our advantage. In other words, stop trying to make war on the concept of terrorism and start using a form of terrorism to fight back.

One of the problems with trying to fight Al-Qaeda as we would fight a nation's army is that Al-Qaeda is not a nation's army or even an army at all. They are a loose collection of smaller groups with a very decentralized organization and command structure. Conventional military solutions are not what we need. We need some out of the box thinking. When Hannibal brought his troops to fight Rome, Rome found that the best way to defeat Hannibal and his troops was to not fight them at all. Hannibal's situation stopped being his advantage and became his burden. I'm not suggesting we do nothing about terrorists. I'm suggesting that we need to find ways to turn their situation against them.

Also, we need to take control of the situation. Currently we are in a position of supposedly not being able to leave Iraq or to do any number other things because whatever it is would "embolden the terrorists". We cannot turn left, cannot turn right, cannot consider another course because it would be considered conceding to the terrorists. The terrorists, on the other hand, seem free to decide on any course of action they desire. We are not in control of the situation. We need to reverse that and place the terrorists in the position of be bounded on all sides by our decisions.

One suggestion I have is that we start hunting down the individual terrorists responsible for whatever acts of terrorism, and we start making examples of them and their families. BT mentioned some sort of Rule of Ten where we kill ten of them for every one of us they kill, or something like that. It's not focused enough. I suggest we make sure the terrorists know that if they attack us then they will end up shamed, dishonored, and dead along with their families and anyone who gave them direct support. Strike them at their sense of honor, at their ability to protect their families, and make their isolation a detriment. Force them to into a course with boundaries defined by us, not the other way around.

None of this is to suggest that I think we need to give law enforcement, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. or anyone else in government more power or that we need to do anything that would infringe on individual liberties of law abiding citizens. I believe we can accomplish these goals without a so-called "Patriot Act" or less restrictions on wiretapping or any of that. Yes, it probably does mean a lot of work, but ultimately the reason to fight the terrorists is not to fight the terrorists, but to prevent them from infringing on the rights of other people, i.e. killing innocent people. And we will not win a fight with radical Islamic terrorists by becoming a tightly controlled police state. We will win by sticking to the principles and ideas of individual liberty that have been the best part of our society since its beginning. And we would get farther in foreign relations if we made those principles and ideas a larger part of our foreign policy.

In summation, encourage trade, bring the troops—all the troops, not just the ones in Iraq—home, stop meddling in other peoples' affairs, and defend ourselves by hunting down terrorists and using their situation against them. Make them wear themselves down rather than us wearing ourselves down. In the vernacular, fight smarter not harder.

[Plane]

 "I suggest we make sure the terrorists know that if they attack us then they will end up shamed, dishonored, and dead along with their families and anyone who gave them direct support. "


I like this part.


Even though it might require warlike actions to attack terrorism in this manner.

[Universe Prince]

I like this part.

So you've been persuaded or you just like the part about killing people?

[hnumpah]

First, I'd like to say that I do not agree with the notion that one must offer an alternative solution if one criticizes a thing. If a person doesn't like something, his opinion is not less valid if he doesn't have a alternative to suggest. One does not have to know how to fix something to recognize that it's broken.

Oh, my. That idea just won't fly in here.

You've listed some good ideas, some maybe not so good. Going after those who attack us and anyone who gives them aid and support, now that's a good idea. Actually, we were doing just that, going after Osama and Al Qaeda, and the Taliban who were giving them refuge in Afghanistan. Doing a pretty bang up job of it, too, until we got sidetracked into this Saddam/Iraq thing. We had a chance to finish things up in Afghanistan, then do some real good there, building schools, hospitals, showing the population we really were there to help out. Instead we went storming off on a fool's errand in Iraq, blew billions of dollars there that could have been better used elsewhere, gave the very terrorists we were out to destroy a great scenario they could use to recruit more and hone their skills against us, et cetera and so on. We pretty much wasted that opportunity.

Going after the families, well, that might not be so good. Ask the Israelis how that's worked out for them. Then you become the oppressor, and you give the populace reason to turn against you. We want the population on our side, to see that we are the good guys. Sure, we killed Joe Blow because he attacked us, and crushed anyone who supported him in planning his attack on us, or gave him the material or money he needed to attack us, or joined him in attacking us. People can understand that. But if we kill his family, or, like the Israelis, destroy their home and displace them, all we do is give more people reason to hate us. And the 'Rule of Ten' thing - what are you going to do, kill ten Iraqis for each of our troops that are killed, regardless of whether they had anything to do with it, or whether they were even anti-American at all? Seems to me you might want to set some more specific guidelines than just 'kill ten of them for every one of ours'.

[Plane]

I like this part.

So you've been persuaded or you just like the part about killing people?

It seemed diffrent than the rest of it.

If we eschew war on terror , but replace it with a certainty of reprisal ,what have we done but change the name on the front?

[kimba1]

the part about going after families is the turning point on whether we`re worth anything or not
remember even the mafia has rules against that.

[Plane]

the part about going after families is the turning point on whether we`re worth anything or not
remember even the mafia has rules against that.

Is it enough?

As far as I know there has ben no push to ind the famiys of the 9-11 hijackers and harm them .

[BT]

Yes, I've been away for a while, but I did not forget about this question, and I want to answer it.

First, I'd like to say that I do not agree with the notion that one must offer an alternative solution if one criticizes a thing. If a person doesn't like something, his opinion is not less valid if he doesn't have a alternative to suggest. One does not have to know how to fix something to recognize that it's broken.

.

I don't believe i stated you must offer an alternative solution . I simply asked if you had one.

Apparently you do.

[_JS]

I cannot support harming family members who have nothing to do with the terrorist actions. It is one thing if we have proof that they are knowingly aiding terrorism, but it is quite another to willfully harm completely innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

[Plane]

 Re: an alternative to the war
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2007, 03:13:10 PM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "I suggest we make sure the terrorists know that if they attack us then they will end up shamed, dishonored, and dead along with their families and anyone who gave them direct support. "


I like this part.

I cannot support harming family members who have nothing to do with the terrorist actions. It is one thing if we have proof that they are knowingly aiding terrorism, but it is quite another to willfully harm completely innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

I see the problem you are pointing out.

On reconsideration I withdraw support for targeting family members , but otherwise I still like the idea.

[hnumpah]

As far as I know there has ben no push to ind the famiys of the 9-11 hijackers and harm them .

As a matter of fact, members of Bin Laden's family were actually rounded up and flown out of the US right after the 9-11 attacks. I recall reading their charter flight was one of very few flights allowed over the US in the aftermath of 9-11.

[Universe Prince]

If we eschew war on terror , but replace it with a certainty of reprisal ,what have we done but change the name on the front?

We will have stopped lying about it.

[Universe Prince]

Going after the families, well, that might not be so good. Ask the Israelis how that's worked out for them. Then you become the oppressor, and you give the populace reason to turn against you.

Don't we already have that problem?

And the 'Rule of Ten' thing - what are you going to do, kill ten Iraqis for each of our troops that are killed, regardless of whether they had anything to do with it, or whether they were even anti-American at all? Seems to me you might want to set some more specific guidelines than just 'kill ten of them for every one of ours'.

The Rule of Ten was BT's idea, and I thought setting more specific guidelines is what I did.

We want the population on our side, to see that we are the good guys. Sure, we killed Joe Blow because he attacked us, and crushed anyone who supported him in planning his attack on us, or gave him the material or money he needed to attack us, or joined him in attacking us. People can understand that. But if we kill his family, or, like the Israelis, destroy their home and displace them, all we do is give more people reason to hate us.

I cannot support harming family members who have nothing to do with the terrorist actions. It is one thing if we have proof that they are knowingly aiding terrorism, but it is quite another to willfully harm completely innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

I understand the objections to going after the family members, and it is something with which I am not comfortable. The idea, though, is to shame the terrorists, to destroy their honor. As I understand it, the Islamic extremists who are terrorists hold to an old sense of honor. And by old I mean medieval. The men must be unquestionably brave and any insult or injury against them or their families is a denigration of their honor. Attacking their families makes them appear weak by their own standards. So, if we do not go after the families, how do we shame them and thereby make terrorists lose face, so to speak, to make them appear weak and cowardly to their own people? What is the alternative? I hope there is one, I just don't know what it is.

[Universe Prince]

I don't believe i stated you must offer an alternative solution.

I know you didn't.